Sitting of 4 March 1862

POOR RELIEF IN SCOTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, On what day the Lord Advocate of Scotland will introduce the Bill, as promised last Session, to extend to Scotland the provisions of the: "Act to amend the Law relating to the Removal of Poor Persons to Ireland, 1861"?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSreplied, that the Lord Advocate was in communication with the Poor Law authorities on the subject, and such a Bill would be brought in.

  THE CURRAGH CAMP.—QUESTION.
  MR. BRUENsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether there is any objection to provide a place of recreation for the Officers and Soldiers at the Curragh Camp, by inclosing a suitable piece of ground for a Cricket Ground, in such a manner as to prevent Artillery and Cavalry from crossing it?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that there was no objection on the part of the War Office; but the assent of the Commanding Officer must be obtained.

  PUBLIC STATUES.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he desired to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any application has been made for permission to erect a Statue of the late Mr. Joseph Locke, in the Gardens near St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, in which the Statue of George Canning is placed; and, if so, whether he has granted or refused his consent thereto?
  MR. COWPERreplied, that some of the friends of the late Mr. Joseph Locke desired to erect a Statue to his memory, and had offered to place one in the vacant space near the end of Great George Street, provided that such a site could be appropriated for the purpose; but it had become his duty to state to those gentlemen that he was unable to offer them the site to which they alluded.

  ITALY—MURDER OF DR. M'CARTHY AT PISA.—QUESTION.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid,
  1024
  he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the murderer of Dr. M'Carthy at Pisa has been arrested and committed to take his trial; and, if not, whether the authorities in Tuscany or the British Consul at Leghorn have done their utmost to bring the offender to justice; and whether he will lay upon the table Copies of all Communications which have been addressed by British Diplomatic Agents and British Residents in Italy to the Government of Turin on the subject of Dr. M'Carthy, and the Replies thereto?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that the circumstances under which the unfortunate Dr. M'Carthy had been murdered were well known. Immediately after the attack on him, the murderer and his accomplices were arrested. He would avail himself of the present opportunity to contradict a report which he had seen in the public press, to the effect that there had been an omission in not taking the murderer into the presence of Dr. M'Carthy that he might be identified. It had been proposed to adopt that course, but the public authorities at Pisa considered that there had been a sufficient identification, and they did not wish to put Dr. M'Carthy to the pain which such a proceeding might cause him. Immediately after the murder was made known to Baron Ricasoli he expressed himself in such a manner as those who knew him might have expected. The English residents at Florence and Pisa met soon after the occurrence. Their proceedings were characterized by an excitement which, under the circumstances, was, perhaps, but natural. However, the Italian authorities had done everything that was to have been expected. The prisoners had been sent to Lucca, where they would be tried and, no doubt, punished as they deserved. The memorials referred to by the hon. Gentleman had already been published; and he did not think it necessary to lay them on the table. No representations to the Italian Government were necessary, as they had shown their readiness to act with efficiency in this melancholy affair.

  THE OUTRAGE ON ITALIAN OFFICIALS AT MALTA.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACEVOYsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has been received that, previous to the late

  1025
  alleged outrages and insult being offered to the dwellings and persons of the Italian Consul and of Signor Fabrizzi, Deputy to the Italian Parliament, on the 9th and 10th of February, at Malta, the editor of the Portafoglio Maltese, Mr. Debono, had not been assaulted and severely beaten with a bludgeon in his own house by Captain Dini, of the Sardinian man-of-war Mozambano, assisted by his Lieutenant and some of his sailors; and whether Captain Dini and his Lieutenant had not been sentenced to imprisonment, the Captain to three months and his Lieutenant to two months, and whether the Government have made any representation to the Sardinian Government in consequence of these proceedings?
  MR. LAYARDregretted to say that the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman had been proved. Captain Dini and his Lieutenant, feeling them selves aggrieved by some articles that had appeared in the Portafoglio Maltese, called on the editor, entered his room in presence of his family, and beat him with a stick very severely. The Captain and the Lieutenant were tried by the authorities and sentenced—the former to three and the latter to two months' imprisonment, which was afterwards commuted to a pecuniary fine. Her Majesty's Government had called the attention of Baron Ricasoli to the act as one unworthy of Officers in the Italian Navy.

  THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he intends to bring in a Bill this Session relating to the recommendations of the Committee on Public Monies of 1856?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the recommendations of the Committee on Public Monies, appointed in 1856, were very varied and very numerous, but he did not think there was any one of them which the Treasury could be disposed on principle to dissent from But as his hon. Friend had asked him the question, he might state to the House the position in which those recommendations stood—which of them had been applied in practice, and which of them had not been carried fully into effect. He would also embrace in his answer the recommendations of the Committee on Public Accounts, which last Committee was itself the off spring, through the intervention of the
  1026
  House and the Government, of the original recommendations of the Public Monies Committee. He might say that all had been done which depended on the sole action of the Treasury. There had been various measures to be taken with regard to the audit of accounts which depended on the Treasury. These had been taken, including an arrangement by which, for the future, the whole subject of civil contingencies would be managed. Those subjects had been disposed of by an Act of the last Session. The new arrangement of the Treasury chest, the recommendations of the Public Monies Committee with respect to Exchequer Bills, and the annual communication of all grants on behalf of the Revenue Department, were subjects that had been dealt with by Act of Parliament. There were four other subjects. One was with respect to the income arising from Crown lands—a recommendation that it should be paid in gross into the Exchequer, and that the expenditure for the Crown lands should he sanctioned by that House. That recommendation would require an Act of Parliament, and it rather pertained to the period at the commencement of a new reign, when arrangements were made with the Sovereign for the whole reign. The next subject was that respecting the mode of Exchequer issues. The Committee had made a recommendation on that subject which had been carried into effect. No Bill had as yet been presented to obtain the sanction of the Legislature to the new arrangement; but the Government intended to take an early opportunity of submitting such a measure. The next recommendation was with reference to the issue of Deficiency Bills and a new mode of arrangement in respect to advances that might be required from the Bank of England. That was a subject which the Government had under consideration with the view of proposing a Bill to Parliament. The only other recommendation related to the mode of presenting the Miscellaneous Estimates from year to year. The Government were desirous of giving effect to it, and hoped to be able to submit the Miscellaneous Estimates for the present year in the new form.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that some doubt had arisen, though not in his mind, as to whether it was the intention of the Government to give effect to the recommendation that the Committee on Public Accounts should be appointed annually.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I did not express myself in my former answer with sufficient clearness; but when I stated that the Committee on Public Accounts was the offspring of the Committee on Public Monies, I meant to imply all that my right hon. Friend has alluded to. I think the annual Select Committee on Public Accounts is an essential part of the duty of this House in voting the public money.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the last Report of the Committee on Public Accounts, in which it was stated that the system of auditing the Public Accounts was very unsatisfactory, and that while that system continued such, a Committee would be a delusion and a blind.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that whatever recommendations as to the audit of accounts depended on the action of the Government had been adopted. With respect to prospective improvements, he thought that the appointment of the Committee on Public Accounts from year to year would be the best method of insuring their adoption.

  ASH WEDNESDAY—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, according to our usual custom this House would not meet to-morrow, being Ash Wednesday, until two o'clock. I understand that the Orders of the Day which were on the paper for to-morrow have all been postponed until another day, and therefore, as there is no public business that requires this House to meet to-morrow, it would probably be more convenient to the House, when it adjourns to-day, that it should adjourn until Thursday. Committees on private business, however, will meet, notwithstanding the adjournment of the House. I will therefore move that this House at its rising do adjourn until Thursday.

  ADDRESS OF CONDOLENCE FROM MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he trusted the House would allow him to avail himself of that opportunity to put the question which stood in his name on the paper, and which was, to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he took any and what means to
  1028
  ascertain whether the Address of Condolence lately presented to Her Majesty, purporting to emanate from the President, Superiors, and Students of Maynooth College, did in fact emanate from those persons? The address to which he alluded appeared by the public journals to have been presented to Her Majesty. He confessed that it did occasion in his mind great surprise that such a document should either have emanated from the college, or that it should have been presented to Her Majesty if it did not emanate from it. Since that time he had received various communications respecting that address; and much surprise had been expressed that an address of condolence should have been presented to Her Majesty, making it appear that the College of Maynooth was in fact a loyal institution, which would be entirely at variance with the statements that he had felt it his duty on former occasions to make to the House, and which had also been made to the House on authority so much greater than his. [Cries of Name, name!] The hon. Member for North Warwickshire. Now, if the House would allow him, he would give better authority for his statements than his own or that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. He had put the notice on the paper in consequence of the rumours which had reached him, and which he had endeavoured to verify before he put the question. Those rumours had been embodied, and to some extent confirmed, by a declaration contained lately in a newspaper called the Nation. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not quote that paper on account of its authority, but for the convenience of quotation. The declaration purported to be written on behalf of the students of Maynooth. The writer stated, speaking of the address, that the framers of the address had no authority whatever from the students to speak their sentiments, and they had gone in direct opposition to the wishes as well as to the sense of the community. The students therefore thought it proper to dissociate themselves from the framers of the address; and though it was not their province to condemn, they might be permitted to withhold their approbation of an act which, as far as it included them, they utterly disavowed. The address, the writer went on to say, was read before the entire body of students had re-assembled, and also at a time and in a place of solemn character which secured it from a reception which otherwise it

  1029
  would assuredly have met with. As it was, it was received with the strongest marks of disapprobation that piety or decorum would permit. The letter concluded with the expression that with these convictions the students could not so far give the lie to their conscience, or be capable of such meanness as to declare they felt sympathy when in fact they felt none. [Cries of Name!] "Maynooth Student." [Renewed cries of Name!] He had no name to give, If the right hon. Gentleman doubted that the letter did truly represent the state of feeling at Maynooth, which was one of utter disloyalty—in fact, the very hotbed of disloyalty—he could assure him that he would not have read it unless he had taken means to satisfy himself that it did truly represent the sentiments of the students at Maynooth. In proof of that he would read an extract from the evidence given before the commission appointed at the instance of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to inquire into the teachings, &c, of the college. That evidence showed that at the College of Maynooth the very keystone of the whole system was direct and positive disloyalty to the Sovereign of these realms. That was embodied in the evidence of four or five witnesses. One witness (Mr. W. J. Burke) said, that both open and disguised disloyalty were inculcated at Maynooth. He (Mr. Burke) used, when there, to be thirsting, and desiring and praying for the destruction of the British Empire, solely because it was Protestant. He added that those were not only his own feelings, but the feelings of all the students. This teaching even pervaded the amusements at Maynooth. He (Mr. Whalley) would read to the House a song which was sung, "Columbia's Banner," [laughter.] He thought it necessary to read this in justification of the question which he wished to ask. [Cries of Sing, sing! and laughter.] Any hon. Gentleman who desired to sing the song could have the book.
  "Columbia's banner floats on high,
  Her eagle seizes on its prey;
  Then Erin wipes her tearful eye,
  And cheers her hopes on Patrick's Day."
  There were only two more lines.
  "The toast we give is Albion's fall,
  And Erin's pride on Patrick's Day."
  Such were the amusements of Maynooth. The evidence of the disloyalty of the institution was before the right hon. Gentle
  1030
  man, and he wished to ask him whether he took any care to ascertain that the address of condolence did really emanate from Maynooth, or whether it was not an actual forgery, a mere pretence, an insult to Her Majesty, and calculated to deceive the public?
  MR. NEWDEGATEwished to say, that as the hon. Gentleman had stated that he had put his question partly on his authority, he would excuse him for saying that although he was prepared to abide by all that he had ever stated on the subject of Maynooth, and although he would not dispute the grounds on which the hon. Gentleman had put his question, yet he knew nothing of the matter that the hon. Gentleman had brought before the House.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had not alluded to the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, but to the other hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner).
  SIR ROBERT PEELwas sure it was unnecessary for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) to disclaim having anything to do with the question before the House. He was not aware that it was the intention of the hon. Gentleman to inaugurate a new debate on Maynooth, but he was prepared to answer his question. He would only say that the Address of Condolence was forwarded from Maynooth to the Home Secretary, and dealt with in the usual manner. The rumours which had reached the hon. Gentleman had not come to his ears, and he had no reason to doubt the loyalty of the students of Maynooth. In proof of the authenticity of the Address of Condolence, he held in his hand a letter from Dr. Russell, written from St. Patrick's College, and addressed to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—
  "I have the honour to transmit to you by this post the dutiful Address of the Scholars of the College to Her Gracious Majesty the Queen—an Address of Condolence on the death of the Prince Consort, and to request that you will present it to Her Majesty on their behalf."
  That letter was, he thought, a complete answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman,
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE:—Sir, I will say nothing about the good taste which has induced the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) to drag before the House any Address of Condolence offered to Her Most Gracious Majesty. Sir, that is a matter which the hon. Gentleman will settle between himself and his followers,

  1031
  who are about to attend at that tower which he has built in a corner of his leased premises in the county of Denbigh. But I roust warn the House that the hon. Gentleman in quoting this evidence has been playing one of those old tricks which I heard him play the other day in Ireland at the Rotunda meeting, and which he afterwards followed up in Scotland. He goes about with that blue-book, and he is continually quoting that song. We had that song read at full length at the Rotunda in Dublin. I was fortunate enough to obtain a ticket to attend an assembly at which Mr. Whalley was advertised in red letters in the bill to appear. He appeared there, and taxed not only the Roman Catholic priests but also the Roman Catholics of Ireland with disloyalty; and I should say there could be no greater proof of their good humour than the fact that the hon. Gentleman walked out of the building in the Catholic city of Dublin with a whole skin. The hon. Gentleman thought proper to read that song, and there was of course tremendous cheering and some laughter—such laughter as that which I am glad to see predominated in this House; because I think the British House of Commons is far too sensible to let a subject which has descended from the hands of that otherwise highly respected Member for North Warwickshire be now dragged through the kennels of Peterborough. I do hope, Sir, that as there is a great lack of business this Session, if we are to have this Maynooth debate revived, the noble Lord will give the hon. Member to-morrow after two o'clock, to discuss this question. But what I do deprecate is, that insulting questions should be put with respect to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and, above all, that they should be dragged before the House by means of the stale arguments and forgotten songs which the hon. Gentleman is in the habit of using when he stars it in the provinces.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEROSSEsaid, that as one of the trustees of the College of Maynooth, he protested against the language just used by the hon. Member (Mr. Whalley), and he had to state that the statements contained in that anonymous letter which the hon. Gentleman had just read were quite untrue. He had the best reason for making the assertion that the statements in that letter were not founded on fact.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he rose merely
  1032
  to explain. The statement of the hon. Member for Liskeard was not in accordance with the fact.
  MR. SPEAKER: —The explanation must be confined to anything which the hon. Member has said himself. He must not reply to the hon. Gentleman.
  Motion agreed to; House at rising to adjourn till Thursday.

COLONIAL GOVERNMENT.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, that he rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the Report of the Select Committee of last Session upon Colonial Military Expenditure. It would be recollected that that Committee was instructed to inquire and report whether any and what alterations might be advantageously adopted in regard to the defence of the British Dependencies, and the proportions of cost of such defence as now defrayed from Imperial and Colonial funds respectively. That Committee had been very impartially selected, and comprised many hon. Members who had devoted much attention to the subject. The question being at once of a financial, colonial, and military nature, the heads of the Colonial Department, the Secretary for War, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Inspector General of Fortifications, and other experienced witnesses (among them Lord Grey and several gentlemen who had held office under Home and Colonial Governments), had been examined, and all the attainable evidence which appeared to have any bearing upon the question had been taken by the Committee. The result was, that a Report was presented to the House which, in all its main recommendations, he might say, had been unanimously adopted. There were, of course, some special recommendations which were not agreed to altogether unanimously. That report was now on the table of the House. Before alluding to the Motion which stood in his name, and which was founded on the recommendations of that Committee, he might be allowed to disclaim the imputations which had been too freely cast upon those hon. Members who had thought it their duty to take any active part in reducing our colonial military expenditure. It had been said that those who, whether in or out of Parliament, ventilated this question, in which the Dependencies and the

  1033
  parent State were alike interested, were, in fact, aiming at the dismemberment of our Colonial Empire. For his own part and that of the Committee, he entirely disavowed any such intention. Throughout the inquiry it was not only assumed that Great Britain desired to maintain her Colonial Empire, but that she aimed at developing the resources of her colonies and qualifying them for present self-government and eventual independence. It was also assumed by the Committee that Great Britain recognised the claim of all portions of the British Empire to Imperial protection from perils arising from the consequences of Imperial policy, and that the naval assistance of England was essential—indeed, was the only substantial protection which the Colonial Empire could expect to receive from the Imperial Government. But the Committee never entered into any question which would at all affect the dismemberment of our Colonial Empire, or invite a policy which would tend to the premature severance of a single province which now volunteered allegiance to the British Crown. Though the terms of the reference were very wide, embracing in the comprehensive term "Dependencies" all the outlying portions of the Empire, India, the Mediterranean garrisons, the West African Settlements for the suppression of the slave-trade, and all the military and naval stations where so ever situate, the Committee thought it best not to extend their investigation to those stations which were maintained for Imperial purposes, and which must necessarily be maintained, if at all, at Imperial cost, but to limit their inquiry to those which came strictly under the designation of "Colonies." The area of inquiry, therefore, comprised the North American colonies, the Australian colonies (with the exception of Western Australia,) the West Indies, the Cape of Good Hope, New Zealand, the Mauritius, and Ceylon. His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had given notice of an amendment by way of addition to the Motion now before the House with reference to fortifications. He would merely remark, therefore, that the main evidence given before the Committee on that subject related to the Mauritius, and tended to show that while enormous expenditure had been incurred, it was extremely doubtful whether the works that had been carried out would ever prove of the least utility to the Imperial Govern-
  1034
  ment. Upon the question of fortifications, a resolution was passed which conveyed the opinion of the Committee; and if any hon. Member would take the trouble to read the evidence of Lord Herbert, Lord Grey, Admiral Erskine, and others, they would, he believed, agree with him in thinking that the paragraph taken from the report of the Committee was well founded. Rut to return to the Motion of which he had given notice:—Hon. Members might consider that his Resolution was a mere abstract proposition, and that the adoption of it by the House would be either superfluous or mischievous; but he begged to say that the opinions embodied in the Resolution were by no means original, but opinions which had been publicly expressed by Lord Grey in his official correspondence with Lord Elgin, and other statesmen of high eminence in this country, and were to be found in the despatches of Sir William Denison, one of the ablest of our colonial governors. They had been supported by the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), who stated, when the Committee on Colonial Military Expenditure was appointed, that this country ought to assist the colonies against external aggression and, in a lesser degree, against the attacks of formidable tribes; but that in no case, except where the colonies were mere garrisons, should the mother country assume the whole responsibility of their defence. That principle had been also fully supported by the evidence of that noble and patriotic statesman Lord Herbert, who stated that instead of keeping the troops scattered about the British dependencies he would concentrate them more at home; and that the maintenance of large garrisons in the colonies furnished them with an excellent excuse for not raising any militia of their own. He would also refer to the evidence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who gave it as his opinion that the fact of the parent State undertaking the defence of the colonies had an enervating and mischievous effect upon the latter; and likewise to that of Lord Grey, who maintained that the introduction of the system of self-government into the colonies made a material difference in respect to the policy to be pursued, and that, power and responsibility ought to go together. There were differences in the different groups of colonies both as regarded their internal resources of defence, and their exposure to

  1035
  external perils; but the principle set forth in his Resolution was the right principle on which the Government should act in dealing with the Colonial Empire. All the witnesses examined by the committee had agreed that where responsible government was given to a colony the primary responsibility of its military defence should also be cast upon it. That was the principle he had embodied in his Resolution. He admitted that to enunciate a sound principle and to carry it into practical operation were two different things; but he did not admit, as some were prepared to contend, that they must submit in despair to the condition of things now existing; and that, as in giving the colonies responsible government no contract was made that the colonies should undertake their self-defence, therefore the whole coat of the defence of the colonies must for ever be borne by the mother country. Was it for a moment to be contended that because no clause had been inserted in the Act or Order in Council which conferred representative government on a Colony, expressly stipulating for its self-defence, that burden was eternally to rest on the parent State, whatever power or wealth the Colony so circumstanced might attain? He protested against that argument as altogether unsound, and maintained that the acceptance by the colonies of the advantage of self-government implied at the same time a compact on their part to undertake their own defence against all perils, except those to which they might be exposed by the results of Imperial policy, and, at all events, to provide for their own internal order and security. But it was said that, after all, the Colonies of Great Britain, though they might be expensive to the parent State, could only be regarded as prodigal sons, and must be treated accordingly. He dented that the parental analogy held good at all; but if it did, the only successful mode he knew of treating a prodigal son was to throw him upon his own resources. It was said, again, by some, that in certain colonies, such for instance as New Zealand and the Cape, the colonists must not be left to deal single-handed with the natives, as in that ease scenes would result which would arouse the indignation of the people of England; but he thought that after trusting the colonies with the entire management of their own affairs, it was an insult to them to insinuate that in collisions with the natives they would resort to barbarous
  1036
  and disgraceful practices. With respect to the argument as to the inhumanity of throwing our colonies on their own resources in the matter of their defence, he could only say it was criminal to give them the right of self-government if they were totally incapable of protecting themselves; and he believed that so long an we went on giving them unlimited power to draw on the Imperial army in the case of every quarrel of their own, there could be no certainty that we should not have a perpetual succession of Kaffir wars, which had already cost this country five millions sterling, and similar difficulties in other portions of our Empire. There was, moreover, an additional and cogent reason for compelling the colonists to take upon themselves the main responsibility of keeping themselves out of those quarrels. The commissariat expenditure in these wars was enormous, and the colonists had a direct interest in the increase of these expenses. Sir Harry Smith said, speaking of an unsuccessful attempt on the Cape frontier to capture Sandilli, "This bit of a brush with Sandilli cost us £ 56,000 in waggon hire alone." That outlay all went into the pockets of the colonists at Cape Town. He did not blame the colonists for endeavouring to put money into their pockets when they could get it out of the commissariat expenditure; but he did blame the Imperial Government for perpetuating the present system of keeping the colonies in a state of everlasting minority and childish dependence. The fact was, that our present system was not only far more extravagant but little less cruel than the old Commando system. Not many years ago the 12tb Lancers were almost massacred in an impenetrable thorn-bush on the Cape frontier, on a service on which it was inhuman to employ them; and, according to the evidence of Mr. Owen, whose experience in the command of frontier levies in that colony gave weight to his opinion, it seemed that there was little to choose between the old system and the modern one on the ground of philanthropy. In New Zealand the result of the present system was, that Sir George Grey was placed in a most anomalous position—that of having to serve two masters—the Imperial Government and the Legislative Assembly. He knew it might be alleged that the troubles in which the Colonists became involved, were in a great measure the result of Imperial policy, but there could be no

  1037
  doubt that the hostilities had for the most part a purely local origin; and he did not see why the Government and the people of this country should have for ever to undertake the defence of the colonies in wars in which they might engage from motives which we could not gauge and under a policy which we could not control. It appeared to him it was a case in which we must either go forward, and leave the colonies more to their own resources, or draw back, and deprive them of the privileges of self-government. But that latter course was now practically impossible. He confessed that he was not of those who were disposed to indulge in sarcastic observations on the mode in which our Colonists had made use of their free institutions, for he could make a large allowance for the many and great difficulties with which they had to contend in attempting to carry out a system of government for which they had undergone no previous preparation; and he entertained sanguine hopes that under a sounder policy they would prove themselves to be as well qualified to bear the burdens as to exercise the privileges of freedom. But perhaps he might be told that a correct theory was one thing and that its practical application was another; and he might he asked what course he would recommend the Imperial Government to pursue in the matter. The system he would suggest would be to leave off the undignified haggling with local Governments, hitherto of such frequent occurrence, and which had invariably ended in bitter recriminations, and often in Imperial humiliation, and pursue the course adopted by Lord Grey in the case of our Australian colonies some ten or twelve years ago—namely, that of simply announcing to them that certain aid would be allowed them by the Imperial Government in the shape of troops from England; and that if more than that was required, it must be at their own expense. If that principle were adhered to, the colonists would not be so ready to involve them selves in war, and would be rather more circumspect in their dealings with the native population, and the Imperial Government would be spared the everlasting drain which was made upon its treasury for the defence of the colonies. He might be told that the present was a very inopportune moment for saying anything that could possibly give offence to our colonists. So far as our North American
  1038
  colonies were concerned, he admired, in common with others, the spirit which they had recently displayed; nor should he have complained if even a larger number of troops had been sent out there during the winter for the reinforcement of the garrisons; but he begged to remind the House that in those colonies there were from 80,000 to 90,000 Volunteers either already trained or in course of training, and he regretted very much that these defensive operations had not been sooner commenced. He hoped Canada would never forget that the training of her militia was a matter of the greatest importance, and one which deeply affected her own security. All our colonies, indeed, should be made to feel that they were primarily responsible for their own defence against all dangers in which their own and not our Imperial policy had involved them. He might mention that about three years ago a member of the Legislature of New South Wales moved a resolution, which was carried by a majority of 39 to 11, in almost precisely the same terms as that which he had now the honour to submit to the House. If in a colonial Legislature such a proposition was moved and carried, it could not be regarded as discourteous to the colonies that the Imperial Parliament should adopt a similar Resolution. He hoped the House would believe that he had not intended to utter a single word which could be considered as discourteous or unfriendly towards the citizens of any portion of our Colonial Empire. So far from wishing to alienate the colonies or to prejudice their interests, his object was to draw closer the bonds of alliance which united them with the mother country, and to qualify them for all the rights, privileges, and duties of self-government. He concluded by moving, "That this House, while it fully recognises the claim of all portions of the British Empire on Imperial aid against perils arising from the consequences of Imperial policy, is of opinion that Colonies exercising the rights of self-government ought to undertake the main responsibility of providing for their own internal order and security."
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he rose to second the Motion. He was glad that the hon. Member for Taunton had repudiated so distinctly, on the part of the Select Committee of last Session, any feeling in favour of the dismemberment of our Colonial Empire. In endeavouring to weigh

  1039
  both sides of the important question before the House, the point in which he felt the greatest interest was its bearing on the treatment of the aborogines in the colonies. It had always been felt to be a difficulty in the way of leaving colonists to manage their own military affairs, that they might, perhaps, act with violence and cruelty towards the native tribes. It was highly honourable both to the Government and people of this country that the apprehension of injury resulting to the aborigines of their colonies from a discontinuance of the present system had been hitherto regarded as a powerful argument in favour of its continuance, notwithstanding the enormous expense thereby entailed. But, although that policy was noble, it became necessary to inquire whether it was also sound. Now, as a plain matter of fact, the merit of success could not be attributed to it. At that moment the nation was engaged in a bloody war with the aborigines of New Zealand. At the Cape this country had again and again been forced into campaigns against the Kaffirs, while the Indians in Canada were reduced to a miserable remnant. The general failure of our policy might well lead us to ask whether it had not been attended by results directly opposite to those which had been intended. Nor was it hard to understand that the real consequence of our having undertaken to protect the colonists from the attacks of the original inhabitants, had been this—that the colonists had been by no means desirous of averting war, knowing as they did that the cost would not fall upon them. So far, indeed, from war being considered an evil, it had been hailed as a positive advantage, causing, as it did, a vast outlay of money in the colony; and the colonists consequently had been much more ready to trespass on the rights of the natives than cautious of avoiding offence. It was not probable, that if the colonists in New Zealand had been left wholly to their own resources in dealing with the aborigines, they would have dreamt of endeavouring to exterminate them from their native fastnesses; but they would have done their best to conciliate them, and to make such political arrangements with them by treaty as would have tended to preserve peace. That was not a matter of mere theory. The House knew practically that when the North American colonies were young, and the colonists left to deal as they would with the natives, although in those days
  1040
  the idea of acting with humanity to them had scarcely entered the mind of any one, yet treaties had been at once made, and mere considerations of prudence compelled them to respect their rights. Who could doubt that it would have been the same at the Cape of Good Hope? Unless the colonists there had known that upon this nation would fall the burden, and to them would accrue the profits of war, they would in some way or other have contrived to avoid difficulties with the Kaffirs. He thought that experience and the obvious reason of the case made it sufficiently evident that it would be to the interest of the natives, if the colonists, and not the mother country, had to find the sinews of war. But he also hoped that common humanity, no less than prudential motives, would restrain colonists from ill-treating the aborigines. Were the responsibility of preserving or exterminating the native races thrown upon them, he believed they might trust to the increasing thoughtfulness and love of justice of their countrymen to restrain them from any gross violation of its principles. Events in New Zealand had shown what a very strong feeling of sympathy there was with the natives among an important section of the colonists. The missionaries were sure to take that side, and public opinion at home would be so strongly expressed against any acts of cruelty, that for their own credit's sake the colonial authorities would scarcely venture to be guilty of them. The next consideration to which in a great degree the maintenance of the present system was to be ascribed was now becoming obsolete. The Duke of Wellington, he believed, always resisted any proposal to reduce the armed force in our colonies, because in his time, the feeling at home being strong against the maintenance of a large standing army, he thought it prudent to keep as large a force as possible away from the country. Whether for good or for evil, that feeling no longer existed. The Government now could come down, as had been the case only on the previous day, and in a time of profound peace ask for £ 27,000,000 for the defences of the country. That objection, therefore, fell to the ground, and he might pass on to what had been called the sentimental argument—namely, that it was emblematical of the tie between England and her colonies to see not only the British flag flying, but the red coats of our soldiers guarding it from dishonour. But it surely would bind England more

  1041
  closely to her colonies if she were to place absolute trust in the loyalty of her colonists, and were to intrust the honour of the flag of the empire altogether to their keeping. There remained a fourth consideration, which demanded the most candid examination—namely, that since the colonies might at any time he involved in war by reason of the foreign policy pursued by the mother country, it was only fair that they should be protected from the consequences of that policy. It seemed to him an essential point to bear in mind, that it was not owing to any decision of the representatives of the people that this country engaged in war. No doubt public opinion might be consulted with regard to it, but war was decided upon by the Queen—in other words, by the Executive Government, not by the representative Legislature of the country; and therefore it was not only those portions of the empire which were represented in that House that were responsible for the war, but the whole of the empire over which the Queen's Government extends. And since it might be hoped that in future this country would engage in war, not for the sake of ambition or conquest, but simply to guard her rights from trespass and her honour from stain, every part of the empire would be deeply interested in its prosecution. While, then, the outlying portions of the empire were not asked to share the cost of such war, it might at any rate he demanded that the strength of the mother country should not be impaired by the colonies constantly requiring the presence of her troops. Let it not be forgotten that the real and true defence of colonies lay in the naval supremacy of the mother country; and that so long as that was maintained, so long we were actually shielding our colonies from attack, and affording them an infinitely better protection than could be afforded by any troops on land. There was an exception to that rule in the case of Canada, so far as regarded the contingency of an invasion from the United States. But, on the other hand, although Canada and although our other colonies might be involved in war by our imperial policy, still they were saved from all wars except those to which our imperial policy might lead. But for their connection with this country, any quarrel between them and a powerful neighbour might lead to an invasion, and possibly to their subjugation; and Canada would have been
  1042
  singularly liable to such a danger from her ambitious and somewhat grasping neighbours, and possibly even from Russia or France. There was no reason why the whole advantage should be on the side of the colonies. Their connection with us brought some risks. It relieved them from still greater risks. They might well take their share of the former when they remembered, that so long as they were English colonies, there was no shadow of danger of their being permanently deprived of their liberty and in dependence. But let them weigh the two; and if they thought that the risks incurred by their connection with us exceeded the importance of those from which it saved them, and the prestige gained by them as portion of the British empire, why what statesman was there who would refuse them permission to withdraw from what they regarded as a disadvantageous bond? He supposed there was no statesman who would not allow that the prudent as well as the right way to deal with the colonies was to let them feel that they were free to cancel the bond if they chose, and that the evils resulting to us from that severance would be infinitely less than the disadvantages which would accrue to them. It was further to be considered, that although we occasionally involved them in war, they were quite as likely to involve us in war. We were quite as likely to be set at issue with the United States owing to some Canadian misunderstanding, as the Canadians were to be attacked by the United States owing to some quarrel with England. Lastly, he would ask whether in reality we rendered our colonies more secure from attack by undertaking their defence on land? After all, a very few troops, comparatively speaking, could be spared from home; and he thought the experience of our great wars with France had shown plainly enough that a small force being stationed in a colony, so far from being any defence to that colony, acted as a direct temptation to the enemy to attack it for the sake of making the garrison prisoners. And more than that, if the garrison attempted to defend itself, violent measures would be instantly resorted to by the enemy, who otherwise, if he thought it worth while to come at all, would take peaceable possession, from which, however, he would probably be dislodged if our naval supremacy had not been impaired. And more than that, although the military force sent out might

  1043
  be very small, still it was always sufficient to give the most direct and effectual discouragement to the endeavours of the colonists to defend themselves. It stood to reason that, so long as the colonies could look to the mother country for defence, they would not be so short-sighted as to establish defences of their own, which not only would cost them large sums, but would prevent the British Government from expending a large amount of money in the country. The result was, that while a very costly force was being maintained by us, still in the event of war the colonists themselves would have no military organization, and would do little or nothing in conjunction with our forces. Whereas, if we had left them alone, they would, in all probability, have prepared themselves for such emergencies, and nearly every man in the colony would have had some training as a soldier. Those were the four main objections to the change proposed by his hon. Friend, and when looked into they did not seem valid. On the other hand, the motives for making the change were strong, but he would touch on them briefly. In the first place, the system was an innovation. In former times the colonists resented every proposition to keep troops among them as a slur on their independence. Again, the mortality among the soldiers in some of the colonies was awful. Then the cost to us, not including that of the military colonies, was £1,700,000 a year. Above all, the system tended to lower the self-respect of the colonists. It damped their energies, it chilled their loyalty. So far from being a bond of union with us, it gave them the notion that they were held in subjection; that they were our property, not our brethren. It naturally led them to regard their connection with England, as insisted upon by her for her own purposes, not, as it really was, a boon to themselves. Nor did it fail to engender that greed and grumbling which was so apt to arise where favours were so lavishly bestowed. Let it be imagined for a moment what the effect would be if Englishmen were thus looked after, and saved from the necessity of self-defence by some distant country. Surely we should feel degraded, and, instead of gratitude, should be filled with jealousy and discontent. In a word, the system ran directly counter to the true principle of colonization. England ought not to dream of sway over those who have gone forth from her. Her aim should be to surround
  1044
  herself with a noble band of sister States, bound to her only by the tie of loyal love, standing shoulder to shoulder with her against all attack, but not released by her from the invigorating necessity for self-reliance. And who could doubt that our Queen's empire, from the rising to the setting sun, would be all the more firmly rooted when her colonies were neither dandled nor overawed, but were treated by her with perfect trust as her children—with perfect reverence as her equals.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House (while fully recognising the claims of all portions of the British Empire to Imperial aid in their protection against perils arising from the consequences of Imperial policy) is of opinion that Colonies exercising the rights of self-government ought to undertake the main responsibility of providing for their own internal order and security."
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that after the clear and able speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, he would not say a single word on that branch of the question which had been so well brought under the notice of the House. He entirely concurred in the Resolution proposed, and quite agreed that the colonies should have the entire responsibility of their internal defence; but he thought the Resolution of his hon. Friend scarcely went far enough; nor did it grapple with what appeared to him the main grievance brought prominently into view by the report of the Committee. No more important subject could possibly be brought before the public, and, whatever interest might attach to his hon. Friend's Motion now, the subject would by-and-by force itself on the notice of the people. In moving the addition of the Resolution which stood in his name, he wished to refer to the main principle really involved in the discussion, and brought out in the report of the Select Committee. They had reached the turning point in the colonial history of Great Britain, at which they must cautiously and gradually, but steadily, reverse that policy on which they had been acting for a number of years past—the policy which had thrown the primary responsibility of defending the colonies not on themselves but on us. That was a policy in which the people of this country had been induced to acquiesce rather than to approve; and in proportion as our possessions increased in number, in population, and resources,

  1045
  it would be found utterly impossible to continue to supply the colonists with the means of defence. Not only were we supplying them with ships and munitions of war, but with troops and fortifications. So long as we governed the colonies, there was an obligation on tins country to provide for their defence; but that was now changed: the colonies governed themselves; they framed their own laws; to all intents and purposes they were independent communities—so free and independent that some of them, Canada for instance, had a high protective duty upon the manufactures of this country. If hostilities should break out, the present system of colonial policy would be found most embarrassing by the Government. At present some of the largest and wealthiest colonies of Great Britain trusted to her entirely for defence—raising no soldiers and contributing nothing towards the Imperial military expenditure. Our ancient colonial policy was altogether the reverse of this, and to that we must return if it were desired to prevent an outbreak of feeling in this country at the heavy amount of taxation in the event of war, which would endanger the connection between the colonies and the mother country. This was really the great point involved in this discussion. There had been a great deal of evidence adduced before the Select Committee, and nothing could be more clear and distinct than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who used these words—
  "I think that to arrive at a system under which the primary responsibility of self defence by land should be thrown upon the colonists themselves—speaking, of course, of those colonies which are, so to say, normally constituted—would be not only an immense advantage to the British Exchequer, but would have, I think, many still more important and higher recommendations, independently of the question of cost."
  He was asked—
  "You think that any such arrangement, by which the primary responsibility should be thrown upon the colonies, would be advantageous to communities circumstanced as the British colonies are?"
  His answer was—
  "I would almost venture to say, without speaking of cases in which the circumstances are altogether peculiar, that no community which is not primarily charged with the ordinary business of its own defence is really, or can be, in the full sense of the word, a free community. The privileges of freedom and the burdens of freedom are absolutely associated together; to bear the burdens is as necessary as to enjoy the privilege, in
  1046
  order to form that character which is the great ornament of all freedom itself."
  He was asked by the Chairman—
  "I understand your view to be that the fact of the defence of the colonies being undertaken by the parent State has rather an enervating effect upon those colonies, and therefore a mischievous one?—That is my strong opinion. I think that the principle of conjoining burden and benefit is a sound principle, and is equally advantageous to those upon whom the burden is imposed within just limits, and to those from whose shoulders the burden is removed."
  Mr. Godley gave precisely similar evidence. He was asked—
  "Your main object is to diminish the Imperial expenditure in respect to the military defences of the colonies?"
  His answer was—
  "No; my main object is to throw upon the colonists the habit and responsibility of self-defence; it is a secondary but very important object to diminish the Imperial expenditure."
  That was precisely the view taken by the Committee. There was no division when the resolutions were passed. He held in his hand a statement of the sums contributed by the colonies towards military expenditure. In the pay of troops, and for general purposes of defence the following sums had been expended. In New South Wales, £ 33,000; Victoria, £ 72,000; South Australia, £ 7,000; Ceylon, £ 97,000; Mauritius, £ 25,000; Malta, £ 6,000; Jamaica, £ 1,000; Windward and Leeward Islands, with Guiana, £ 29,000; Ionian Islands, £ 21,000. Out of the total of £ 369,000 thus made up only £ 73,000 were repaid during the financial year into the Imperial Exchequer, He did not wish to say a word in disparagement of the late manifestations of patriotism and loyalty which redounded so highly to the credit of Canada; on the contrary, he endorsed in the fullest manner everything that had been already said on that subject, nor should he dream of contending that the colonies ought to bear all the charges of military expenditure incurred in their defence. But he found that until the year 1858 Canada had only 5,000 embodied militia, though the British Government did not receive a shilling on account of the defence of that colony. Nay, at the present moment the Royal Canadian Rifle Regiment was paid out of the Imperial Treasury, While he entirely approved of the step taken by the Government in sending out troops recently, he maintained that at all times, whether the expenditure were great or small,

  1047
  Canada ought to bear its proportion. England could hardly be expected to bear for many years to come the sole charge of the military force in that colony, now that its numbers had risen to 18,000 men. In the Lower Provinces matters were even worse, for up to 1858 there was not a single colonial soldier, militiaman, or volunteer in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, or Nova Scotia, and the entire military expenditure amounted to £198. These colonies had not only increased' in population, but in wealth and resources, and he believed there was now not only an ability but a willingness to assist the Home Government in maintaining suitable defences, if they were only pressed to do so. Of all the great colonies of England there were only two—Victoria and New South Wales—which pursued in this respect a just course towards the mother country. Those were the only two colonies which could be called self-dependent, and they were the only two which contributed towards the expenses of Imperial wars, so that the policy of throwing on the colonies the primary responsibility for their own defence, which it was continually said would lead to their separation from the mother country, had in fact attached them to it, and tended to preserve the connection between them. These reasons induced him to go a little further than the hon. Member for Taunton, and to propose an addition to his Resolution; but as it had been suggested to him that the wording of the Amendment which stood on the paper might not be altogether acceptable to the House or to the colonies, he was desirous of altering its terms, and would not press that part of it having reference to colonial fortifications. At the same time, he would have been justified in doing so by the recommendations of the Select Committee, who recorded their opinion—
  "That the multiplication of fortified places and the erection of fortifications in distant colonial possessions, such as Mauritius, on a scale requiring for their defence a far greater number of men than could be spared for them in the event of war, involve a useless expenditure and fail to provide an efficient protection for places the defence of which mainly depends on superiority at sea."
  The Committee further submitted—
  "That the tendency of modern warfare is to strike blows at the heart of a hostile Power, and that it is therefore desirable to concentrate the troops required for the defence of the United Kingdom as much as possible, and to trust mainly to naval supremacy for securing against
  1048
  foreign aggression the distant dependencies of the empire."
  But that was not the system actually pursued. That House was annually voting small sums for building paltry fortifications in various colonies, and he held in his hand a paper submitted by General Sir John Burgoyne to the Committee, containing a rough estimate of the cost of completing works already in progress, and of new works necessary to place our foreign possessions in a reasonable state of defence, in addition to the sums in the Estimates for 1861–2, exclusive of armaments and ordinary barracks, and of such occasional improvements as art and science may from time to time render necessary. The items were Gibraltar £25,000; Malta, £75,000; Corfu, £75,000; Mauritius, £250,000; Bermuda, £150,000; Halifax, £75,000; St. Helena, £25,000; Cape of Good Hope, £25,000; Trincomalee, £36,000; Hong Kong, Bahamas, Falkland Isles, Jamaica, Antigua, Kingston, and Quebec, &c, £264,000; making a total of £1,000,000 sterling. It gave him pleasure to add, that not a single witness subsequently examined concurred in the proposals of Sir John Burgoyne. The Duke of Newcastle and the late Lord Herbert totally dissented from his views; and Earl Grey expressed himself in the following terms:—
  "I totally disapprove of the whole policy of large expenditure upon fortifications in the colonies. The experience we have had of the past seems to me to lead to the conclusion that almost the whole of the money we have spent upon colonial fortifications has been so much absolutely wasted, and that with respect to some of those fortifications, erected at great expense, the wisest thing we could now do would be to blow them up again."
  He was content with calling attention to the subject, and he had no wish to embarrass Her Majesty's Government. On the contrary, he believed the Resolution of his hon. Friend, amended as be proposed, would strengthen the hands of the Government in their negotiations with the colonies. The adoption of the policy suggested would prove of permanent advantage to the mother country, and would be the means not of weakening and dividing, but of strengthening and preserving that Empire on which the sun never sets.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words "and ought to assist in their own external defence."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that Her Majesty's Government en-

  1049
  tirely concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), that the resolutions just proposed to the House, so far from embarrassing the Government in dealing with the colonies, would rather assist them in obtaining the object which they, as well as the House, had in view. He also concurred in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Mills) that the most objectionable way in which Imperial troops could be employed in a colony—whether at the expense of the mother country or its own—was in the maintenance of public order, or, to use other words, in performing duties which properly pertained to a domestic police. Such an occurrence, however, did not often occur in colonies which could be described as British communities; though even in those it had sometimes happened that our troops were so employed, He entirely agreed with his hon. Friend in the general condemnation which his Resolution implied of such an employment of Her Majesty's forces; but, in giving his assent to that proposition, he must point out to the House that among our various dependencies there were some in which British troops might be required to act for the maintenance of order without their employment for that purpose coming justly within the scope of the Resolution. Let them take the case of our West Indian colonies. Those communities were very peculiar. So far from being purely British, they were, perhaps, the most strange and heterogeneous of any that had ever been brought together in any part of the world. Nevertheless, they had been brought together under the sanction and protection of this country. Let them take for instance Trinidad, in which the bulk of the population consisted of French, Spanish, Hindoos, and Chinese, and of Africans imported in former days. Those colonies had over and over again been made the subjects of British experiments for British interests. They had been first favoured and fostered for the purposes of British policy in the days of the slave trade. Then they had been sacrificed to the con science of this country, in the matter of slavery and, afterwards, to her financial policy in the matter of sugar. He thought it was impossible not to regard them as exceptional communities to which the generally sound principle of his hon. Friend could not at once be applied. He made that observation to guard himself while on the part of the Government he assented to the Resolution. There was also the
  1050
  case of colonies such as the Cape of Good Hope, British Caffraria, Natal, and New Zealand, in which the relations between the colonists and the native tribes were partly domestic and partly foreign. Foreign they were to a great degree, but not wholly so, because local feelings and interests were liable to influence the conduct of a governor, and the policy pursued towards them could not be purely Imperial. With respect to New Zealand, when a responsible or popular Government was conferred on the colony, the authority given to the colonists was in effect unlimited. An attempt had, indeed, been made to restrict that power within bounds, and to separate the government of the natives from the action of the popular constitution; but he must confess that in a great degree that had been a failure. At the time of the first great change no substantial guarantees were obtained, no fund was appropriated to enable the governor to carry out the administration, and an admixture of the popular element had spread into all the departments. He spoke with some reserve, as the Government were waiting for advices from that able man who, he was happy to say, had gone to New Zealand within the last few months, before they could announce his matured policy; but, he must express his own conviction that the Government of this country had lost the duty, because it had lost the power to administer the affairs of the native tribes of New Zealand by officers responsible to itself, and that it would be necessary to hand them over to Ministers possessing the confidence of the New Zealand Legislature. There could be no doubt that this change would increase the obligations of the colonists to provide for their own protection. He must at the same time observe, that the system which in modern times had been pursued by this country towards these colonies was not one that had been without result. Would it have been possible of late years to have pursued towards the colonies the policy which this country carried out, or rather tolerated, two centuries ago? Would it have been possible in these days to have permitted the colonists and the natives to deal with one another as they had done in those? It was difficult for persons living in the present day to realize the situation of colonists of former times, when they were left unassisted and uncontrolled to deal with the native tribes. Mr. Herman Merivale, formerly Under

  1051
  Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, in his recent work, traced a comparison between modern colonists and those of former times, stated that a good deal was to be said for the old system, which left the colonists to deal as they pleased with the native tribes; while, on the other hand, great advantages, gained it must be admitted at great cost, were obtained by the modern system, Mr. Merivale quoted a passage written by a New England Governor, Mr. Pownall, in which he described the condition of constant insecurity and alarm in which the early American settlers lived, and the injuries inflicted on the Indian tribes under the influence of that terror. Mr. Merivale said—
  "It is hard in our days to realize the life of terror and watchfulness led by the pioneers of our American enterprise for some generations, while the slowly-receding forest around them was the abode of watchful and implacable foes—
  "'With dreadful faces through, and fiery arms.'"
  That feeling of insecurity existed for many generations in the early American colonies, and exercised a most unfavourable effect on their progress. Mr. Merivale showed the influence it exercised on the development of the colonies, and the effect of an opposite state of things, and for this purpose he contrasted the progress of the early American colonies with that of the colony of New Zealand. Mr. Merivale showed that while the New England colonies in the first twenty-three years grew in population 23,000, the population of New Zealand in a less space of time grew to 85,000, with a corresponding increase of commerce and revenue. The altered system had saved this country from great disgrace and materially increased the rate of progress at which our colonies were growing as self-sustained communities. He said that, notwithstanding the conflict which had taken place in New Zealand between the Government and a portion of the native tribes; a conflict which had however been attended with so little calamity and conducted with so much humanity on both sides that it could scarcely be equalled in the history of warfare. Thus, while the Government accepted the Resolution, it was right to caution that House that there were some of the dependencies of the Crown where the Resolution could not be so readily or so rapidly applied as to purely British communities, to which alone he understood it properly to relate. With regard to the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Baxter) as it originally stood,
  1052
  he thought the latter part needless, and that the former part went too far. The uselessness of multiplying colonial fortifications was abundantly shown before the Committee on Colonial Military Expenditure, and that part of the Amendment was therefore unnecessary, as there was no fear either of the present or any Government multiplying such colonial fortifications, as those which he understood his hon. Friend to condemn. With respect to the former part of his hon. Friend's Amendment, he thought it laid down too rigidly the mode of inducing the colonies to contribute to their own defence. A money contribution towards the Imperial forces had been adopted with some success in the Australian colonies, but it was open to objections, and was hardly applicable to all the colonies. There was another simple mode, which consisted in the Government informing any colony that a certain number of troops was the quota which their sense of duty to the taxpayers at home and to the empire at large led them to allot to that colony, and that for any further assistance the colonists must trust to their own men and their own resources. That plan was much more likely to be applicable to our North American colonies than a money contribution. Since his objection, however, had been now removed, he was happy to be able to agree on the part of the Government to an Amendment which enlarged the scope of the original Resolution. He now begged to call the attention of the House to the amount of expenditure incurred on the military defences of the colonies to which his hon. Friend had referred. His hon. Friend had only referred to those colonies which were in the enjoyment of self-government. The colonies that came within that definition were as follows:—In North America—Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward's Island, Newfoundland, and Vancouver's Island; in Australia—New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, New Zealand, and Tasmania; in South Africa—the Cape and Natal; making in all fourteen colonies exercising the right of self-government. All the rest were either military garrisons, such as those in the Mediterranean, or stations not maintaining a British population, but occupied for Imperial interests, such as the Mauritius and Bermudas, or stations for the suppression of the slave trade, like the factories on the West Coast of Africa. He would acknowledge that

  1053
  he had omitted from the list the West India Islands. Jamaica, for example, did not enjoy the full rights of self-government in the sense in which they were enjoyed by a British community. The same might be said with regard to other West Indian Colonies. He had therefore excluded them from his calculation; but be had included the great British harbour and station of Halifax, the French fisheries at Newfoundland, the convict establishment and convict population of Tasmania, and the special case of the formidable native tribes at the colonies of New Zealand, the Cape, and Natal. Now what did hon. Members suppose was the total Imperial military cost of those colonies, including the Cape, upon which the outlay had been once so extravagant, for the year ending March, 1860. The entire amount, in spite of the exceptional cases which were included, was a fraction over the sum of £1,000,000.
  MR. BAXTERasked whether any account was taken of the force in Canada?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman thought that in a great emergency like that which had lately occurred it was wrong to incur the expense of sending troops to Canada, he was at liberty to urge that view. He (Mr. Fortescue), however, knew that such was not his (Mr. Baxter's) opinion. He repeated, then, that the expenditure on account of British colonies properly so called, including the exceptional cases of the Cape and New Zealand, was no more than £ 1,000,000. He did not state those facts for the purpose of showing that the colonies ought not to be called upon to contribute their fair share to the cost of their defence, but only to show that the present Imperial charges on their account were far smaller than they were often supposed to be. He believed that our colonies evinced no lack of spirit when occasion arose to provide against enemies, whether external or internal. It had been said lately by a few able men that those colonies ought to be left, like our early American settlements, to fight their own battles against foreign foes, and that no assistance ought to be rendered to them by the mother country. There had, in his opinion, been considerable misconception on that subject. He believed that if the circumstances of our modern colonies were the same as those of the early American settlements, the conduct of the colonists
  1054
  would be the same. But the North American colonies for several generations had carried on a series of petty wars against their French and Spanish neighbours; they engaged in those wars with great spirit and great passion, and with a degree of animosity even greater than that which they had imported from the mother country. At last, by the assistance of England, they were enabled to subdue their dangerous neighbours. When that was accomplished, the feelings of the colonists towards the mother country altered, and those men who had been more anxious than the statesmen at home, for the conquest of Canada became anxious to get rid of the British troops. And why? They were ripe for revolt; they found the British troops quartered upon them by the operation of an Act of Parliament, when they had no longer a foreign enemy to fear. They resented that state of things, and they made the presence of British troops one of their grievances against the mother country. Now, was there any resemblance between that state of things and the position of our colonies at the present day? In conclusion, however, while contending that it was not the policy or the duty of this country to abandon the colonies entirely to their own means of defence—a policy which, he was happy to say, was not forced upon the House, either by the Resolution or the Amendment—he did admit that it was quite possible to go too far in considering the wishes of the colonists, to forget the interests of the British taxpayer, and even the true interests of the colonists themselves. He was not going to enter into the profit and loss account which had been lately struck by some persons against our colonies. He admitted there were Borne of them which, in that point of view, the mother country would never have sought to wrest from any other Power. But it was desirable for this country to possess friends and sure allies, and stations for her commerce, all over the world. It was really, however, a question of duty, and nut merely of profit. It was the duty of this country to provide for the defence of those colonies, as they desired to be attached to her; and the only question was as to the amount of expenditure which such protection might require. It was our duty, on the one hand, to protect the colonies, and, on the other, to economize the men and money that might be necessary for that purpose. He thought that the

  1055
  Resolution and the Amendment would aid the Government in doing so, and he trusted the House also would give them its best assistance in performing that double duty.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONremarked, that the moderate language of his hon. Friend's Resolution was sufficient in itself to recommend it to the House, emanating as it did from the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee which sat on the subject last Session—a Report which was intended to enforce a policy recommended by no less a personage than Earl Grey. He thought that the Report of the Committee and the Resolution of his hon. Friend might be read in two very different senses, according to the views of persons who entertained different opinions on the matter. They might be accepted by those who held with his hon. Friend that the policy of this country ought to be one in the direction of the principle laid down by Earl Grey. The Resolution might be also accepted by the colonists without giving up any portion of what they considered their rights. But taking the Resolution of his hon. Friend as it had been amended by the hon. Member for Montrose, he was afraid that it would be received in a very different sense, and would bear a very different interpretation. The hon. Member for Montrose went much further than either the Report of the Committee or the Resolution of his hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman had said that the colonists should be left gradually to depend exclusively on themselves, both as regarded the contingencies of internal war and foreign aggression.
  MR. BAXTER: I never for one moment intended to leave the colonists entirely to themselves.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he thought the terms of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment indicated that opinion. At all events, the hon. Gentleman contemplated a vastly more extended scheme than that comprehended by the Resolution of the hon. Member for Taunton. The remarks of the hon. Member for Montrose showed still more clearly what was his meaning. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the possible future independence of the colonies.
  MR. BAXTER: I beg pardon; I never said anything of the kind. I merely said that in every case the colonies should assist in the defence of the mother country.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he must apologize to the hon. Member for misapprehending his observations; but he
  1056
  certainly thought that words to that effect had fallen from him during his speech. He did not, however, wish to fasten the words on him as he had repudiated them. The Resolution, however, might be read in two different senses. The colonists might view it as a declaration on the part of the mother country that in future they would not only be left to protect themselves against all hostile attacks, but that they would be expected to contribute a share towards the expenses incurred in the defence of the mother country in any war in which she might be engaged. Now, no such view as that had been taken either by the Committee or by his hon. Friend, who moved the Resolution. Nor had Earl Grey ever contemplated such a result. As a Member of the Committee, he regretted to hear that the Government intended to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose. It certainly could not have had its origin from the Report adopted by the Committee. He thought that the hon. Member for Taunton had, to a certain extent, lost sight of the important evidence given by Earl Grey before the Committee, in which he explained the policy he had inaugurated. With regard to the Cape of Good Hope, Earl Grey expressed his conviction that were it not for the presence of Imperial troops the colonists and the natives would carry on a war of extermination, and that the contest would probably end in the destruction of the native races. That noble Lord also pointed out that the Cape of Good Hope as a military station was not so useless as some might suppose, but that it was valuable as forming a reserve for India. The Select Committee, while indicating the policy of gradually leaving the colonies to themselves, wisely confided the selection of the mode and time of effecting that object to the responsibility of the Government of the day. He regretted very much to hear the hon. Member for Montrose repeat the taunt of what was called the protection tariff of Canada—that the hon. Gentleman should have put that fact forward as a reason why England should not be any longer taxed with the cost of maintaining the security of that country. Now, the indirect taxation of Canada was the only means that country had of meeting its engagements. There the income tax was impossible, and any sort of direct taxation most difficult. Although perhaps she had been formerly guilty of some extravagance and waste of money, hon. Members should re-

  1057
  collect that the development of her railway system and other useful public works was in far greater proportion than her own material wealth. He trusted that should the amended Resolution be carried, the Government would take no step which was calculated to alienate the affections of the Canadian people, by giving them reason to believe that this country was endeavouring to throw upon them all the responsibility of protecting their own interests, however formidable might be the attacks made upon them.
  MR. HALIBURTONsaid, he did not rise to take any part in the discussion, but rather to express his deep regret that such a subject had been submitted to the consideration of the House at that time. In the first place, he thought the time selected for the discussion was most inopportune. In the second place, he looked upon the Resolution of the hon. Member for Taunton as delusive in its object, The hon. Gentleman might have read his Resolution without any observations, St spoke for itself, and was in effect a mere corroboration of the present practice. No colonist asked to be relieved from an obligation founded in the nature of things and common sense, and therefore he was at a loss to conceive why the subject was introduced at all, except as a peg for the hon. Mover of the Resolution on which to hang an interesting speech. But, in addition to the Resolution, they had the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose. Now, it appeared to him (Mr. Haliburton) that that was a singularly inopportune time for such a declaration. He begged to remind the House that this country had only just escaped a war with the United States on a subject entirely of Imperial interest. An insult had been offered to the flag of England. One of her ships had been boarded and temporarily seized, and four persons who were sailing under the protection of our Bag had been captured and held as prisoners. That was clearly an Imperial question. Further than that no other parties had any interest in the matter. How did the people of Canada behave under the circumstances? The conduct of the colonists of Canada on that occasion, in then relations to this country, was beyond all praise. Even sectarians had combined, and had risen as one man for the defence of their country. At such a time, with such exertions, it was rather inopportune to turn round and begin now to discuss
  1058
  the expense of sending out troops as reinforcements. No particular credit was due to the Government for sending out those troops; for it was done with the unanimous consent of England. There had been none of what the Americans called blustering, but a firm and resolute determination that redress should be obtained, and no Government would have stood for a month that had not demanded it. He believed that the first twenty men they might have met at any railway station would have done the same thing. In the words of the first Resolution there was, he would admit, a great deal of good sense with regard to the colonies bearing a larger share of the burdens in cases relating more especially to their own internal order; but then came the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose, who had talked about the tariff the Government of Canada had imposed on English goods. There was an erroneous impression in this country on that subject. The tariff was a high one, no doubt; but then the colonists paid it themselves. It was originally the intention of the Canadian Government to have had discriminating duties, and to have imposed lower duties on English goods, but they were informed that that would be incompatible with the existing treaties If this country gave the colonies responsible government and free institutions, then Government ought surely to be allowed to be the best judges of the means of increasing its revenue. Direct taxation, he might add, could not be levied to any extent in any part of America except the great cities, and therefore when the Americans passed a law for the purpose of raising so many hundred millions of dollars, they could not succeed in their object unless they imposed the weight of the taxation on the merchants of the large towns. Money was not to be found ill the country districts. The farmers of Canada and the remote parts of the United States were, it was true, men who had plenty of meat, and butter and cheese. They had fleeces from which they wove their cloth, and their groceries they obtained by exchange; but they had no money. Therefore, if the tax-gatherer went to the fanner in the back country of the Western States and asked him for taxes, the answer would be, "I have horses and cows, and so many sheep, and so many pigs, but no money; and if you touch any of my property, I will

  1059
  shoot you." That would be the response of the Canadians under similar circumstances, and they therefore levied taxes on the importation of goods, which was the first means of raising a revenue resorted to in all new countries. He might further observe, that if £10 were levied on a man in the shape of direct taxation, he must part with £10 of hard cash, while the case of indirect taxation was totally different. If 6s. a gallon were imposed on spirit, a man might go without spirit and save the 6s.; or if 20 s. a yard were imposed on broad cloth, he might go without the broad cloth if he pleased. If the existing aid were refused to the colonies, it would render them less able to defend themselves; and to take away their revenue also, would be cutting at both ends. It did not appear to him to be necessary under ordinary circumstances to keep any soldiers in Canada. If the railway were extended from Toronto to the lower part of New Brunswick, troops could be sent from England to any part of Canada in twelve days, as the harbour of Halifax was always open. It was said that the military expenditure for regiments in the colonies in a time of peace was quite astounding. But there was not a colonist who desired the presence of a single regiment. England had command of the sea, end Canada could be invaded only from the United States. There might be some danger of invasion from that quarter, but from no other. The colonists would, however, be quite willing to effect one saving. The governors sent out by this country were as useless there as they were here. Indeed, the two or three last appointments had astonished every man, woman, and child in the country. The colonists, however, did not complain of having to support their governors; and £20,000 a year was contributed annually for the support of gentlemen who had previously been whippers-in or had filled some similar position in that House. Why, if the Government had sent out five large stamps, with Y. R. upon them, and had placed them in the custody of proper officers to affix to public documents when required, some £20,000 a year, which might have gone towards the military defences, would have been saved. He would undertake to say that the colonists would at any time be ready to enter into that agreement. The proposed Resolution raised, no issue, and consequently was useless. No general
  1060
  rule applicable alike to all the colonies could be laid down. The circumstances of every colony differed. Canada wanted no assistance except against the United States. They had no fighting savages there. [An HON. MEMBER: Agreed, agreed!] If hon. Members are agreed, it showed that he had made some impression upon them. The Cape of Good Hope was different to Canada. All the colonies required different treatment. No general rule for them could be laid down except the one now adopted. The best course would be to maintain in each of them as few troops as possible consistently with its safety. [Cries of Agreed, agreed!] If hon. Members were all agreed, it was quite unnecessary for him to say any more on the subject.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to express his satisfaction with the Resolution, and to thank the hon. Member for having brought before the House a proposition so moderate and one so likely to conduce to the advantage both of the colonies and the mother country. He begged to give his cordial assent to the Resolution.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That this House (while fully recognising the claims of all portions of the British Empire to Imperial aid in their protection against perils arising from the consequences of Imperial policy) is of opinion that Colonies exercising the rights of self-government ought to undertake the main responsibility of providing for their own internal order and security, and ought to assist in their own external defence."

REGISTER OF VOTERS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, that he begged to move the second reading of this Bill.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he must oppose the Motion, unless the hon. Gentleman would fix the next stage for a Wednesday, when it could be fully discussed.
  MR. LOCKE KING: I am willing to allow the hon. Gentleman ample opportunity for discussing the Bill, and I will fix the Committee for Tuesday next.
  MR. COLLINS: No, that will not do. Unless the hon. Gentleman fixes Wednesday, I shall be under the necessity of counting him out now.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he did not see why he should be compelled to fix Wednesday.
  MR. COLLINS: I move, Sir, that the House be counted.
  Notice taken, that forty Members were not present; House counted; and forty Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock till Thursday.

Preamble
MINUTES.—PUBLIC BILLS:—1a Consolidated Fund (£973,747); Indian Stocks Transfer.
LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT BILL.

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported according to Order:
  LORD ST. LEONARDS LORD ST. LEONARDS moved the following Clause in substitution for Clause 1 struck out in Committee:—
  "Where a Purchaser for valuable Consideration, or Mortgagee, or his Solicitor or Agent, has not direct Notice of any Act, Fact, Instrument, or Incumbrance affecting the Title to the Property purchased or taken in Mortgage, and with which he is sought to be charged by or through what is termed in Law implied or constructive Notice, that is, Notice or Knowledge of the Act, Fact, Instrument, or Incumbrance with which he is attempted to be charged, and which he would have discovered if he had made diligent and proper Inquiries, founded upon Knowledge which he did possess of some other Act, Fact, Instrument, or Incumbrance affecting the Property, or founded upon imperfect Knowledge which he did possess of the Act, Fact, Instrument, or Incumbrance, with which he is attempted to be charged, or where he has wholly abstained from making any such Inquiry, no such Purchaser or Mortgagee shall be charged with or made liable to any such Act, Fact, Instrument, or Incumbrance, unless the Court before which the Question is raised shall be of opinion that the Conduct of such Purchaser or Mortgagee amounted to Fraud, or unless the Circumstances of the Case are such as to satisfy the Court not only that he might have acquired, but that he ought to have acquired, the Knowledge with which it is sought to affect him."
  Amendments made.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next

  EDUCATION—THE BEVISED CODE OF REGULATIONS.—PETITIONS.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD, in presenting Petitions from various places against the Revised Code of the Committee of Privy Council, said: My Lords, I rise to present to your Lordships petitions from various parts of the country, and especially from my own diocese; and to call your attention to the effects of the Revised Code, find of the alterations which are proposed to be introduced into it by Her Majesty's Government and which have been stated in the Houses of Parliament. My Lords, I am fully conscious of the awkwardness of discussing a question of this gravity without proposing a specific Resolution; but I feel that it is really forced upon your Lordships by the mode in which the question has been brought before yon. I cannot myself think it seemly to ask your Lordships to agree to any distinct Resolution on this proposed Code, because, as far as I am aware, there is no Parliamentary machinery by which in the event of any disagreement between the two Houses there could be any adjustment of that disagreement. If we proceeded by Bill, each Chamber, having the whole matter before it, would be able to introduce its own Amendments; the two Houses could consult together, and the ultimate conclusion of the Legislature would be the adjustment of any differences between the two Houses. But if we proceed by Resolution, there is no way to adjust and bring into perfect harmony what may happen to be the different Resolutions of the two Houses. Therefore it appears to me it would be inconvenient, in the present stage of the business, to invite the House to come to definite Resolutions upon the scheme as proposed by Her Majesty's Government. Not thinking, however, that the House should with old its expression of opinion on this great matter, and believing that its expression is to be obtained by a debating of the subject as far as by the forms of the House it can be debated, I think it desirable that your Lordships' opinion should be elicited and expressed, especially as I believe that outside the House the opinions expressed by your Lordships in debate have a powerful effect in guiding the mind of the country to sound and wholesome conclusions upon matters of deep importance like this. My apology, therefore, to your Lordships must be, that while it is desirable to give your Lordships an oppor-

  991
  tunity of expressing your opinions, and inconvenient to do so by Resolution, there is no other mode save the one which I have adopted of calling the attention of the House in an abstract way to a subject of the widest interest which can possibly be discussed or considered by it.
  Perhaps I may be allowed to say for myself, that I hope to be excused, as the individual Prelate who brings the subject before you, by this one consideration, that the diocese over which I preside—it may be because the great University of Oxford, if not connected with it, is situated locally and practically within it—has paid special attention to the subject; has greatly assisted in devising the different modes by which the Church can meet the offers of the State for helping on the education of the people; is one of the few which has maintained a large training college, so greatly affected by the new Code; is one which has organized a wide system of inspection, and is able to give statistical returns upon the education of the middle and lower orders connected with the Established Church with a degree of exactness and to an extent which few other dioceses can equal. It is not, therefore, surprising that the clergy and laity in the diocese of Oxford should take a deep interest in propositions which will materially affect or readjust the relations between the Church of England, which devotes its labours to education, and the Government, as to the terms upon which State assistance will be afforded to education, and that they should be anxious that their opinions should be expressed fully and deliberately, yet as distinctly as possible, to those who will have the ultimate settlement of this question.
  As the Revised Code was originally propounded, it appeared to me to be based upon a great many fallacious assumptions both with regard to the evils which the alterations were intended to remove, and, perhaps, still more as to the mode in which those evils were sought to be remedied. It is necessary to trouble your Lordships while I show the tendency of the Code before it was again revised, because I believe that, when looked thoroughly into, the proposed revision of the Revised Code, except in two instances, is really illusory, as far as removing the objections to it, and in some instances aggravates the evils of which we complain. The first great evil, and certainly that which is felt most widely in the country is this:—It is sup-
  992
  posed (and certain words in the Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners give a colour to the impression) that the cost involved in carrying out the system upon which during the past few years we have been assisting the education of the lower orders of the country is of indefinite amount. I believe it is entirely fallacious to suppose that the cost would be almost indefinite. I have gone over and over the figures as stated to the Commissioners, and from which they drew their inference; and making the deductions which must be made, so far from the expense being in any degree indefinite, I believe that less than threefold of the present expense would, on the largest possible estimate, cover the whole sum which, within a reasonable time. Parliament could under the old system be called upon to grant for the education of the people. Taking into account the proportion of population which at any time ought to be under education—taking into account the private schools, where the pupils are educated at the expense of their friends—taking into account the children not at present brought under education—children mainly of paupers, living out of workhouses, or of the vicious classes of the population—and supposing that education were extended to them all, less than three times the present amount expended on education would defray the whole charge. There are two ways of looking at this question of expense. Of course it alarms you. But is it an extravagant sum? Here two considerations arise—first, the greatness of the result; and secondly, the greatness of the resources of those by whose aid you are seeking that result. If you take the matter in the abstract, as to whether that large addition of expense would he an extravagant price to give to secure the sound education of the great mass of the people, considering what Great Britain is, I do not think that it would. Try it by any test by which you estimate your national expenditure. See, for instance, what is the cost of providing one implement to defend your coast against the possibility of invasion. Great as is the necessity of such preparation, it is not to be put against giving the right sort of education to the great mass of the people. If we are now living under a state of things in which we contemplate great sums being laid out by a great people for great results—for such results as the defence of our shores from an invading enemy—the mere

  993
  fact that the sum required for education is numerically great does not make it great when put in juxtaposition with the object which we are seeking to obtain. Those internal elements of sensual grossness, unreclaimed by moral and intellectual training, are a danger to a civilized country as great, and a threat against her liberties as real, as any external enemy whom you seek to repel from your shores. I cannot admit that upon the more fact of the figures being large we are to take it for granted that the expenditure is extravagant. There is one mode of estimating the expense upon which it seems to me we can rely, and it is one which Parliament ought to watch, for many reasons, with the greatest care, in order to see that the expenditure is not extravagant. I mean this—we ought to look, not to the actual money spent, but first to the amount spent compared with the result obtained; and, second, to the amount spent by the public compared with the amount contributed by the charity and piety of individuals towards bringing about the same end. Before I enter upon the first, allow me to say a word upon the second. It seems to me that the surest test as to the amount which we should spend is, when the private expenditure of those interested in the great cause and in the localities to be benefited bears a due and just proportion to the sums granted by Parliament. The eye of such people is ever on the work. If the money is spent and the work is not done, the private eye, which looks into details, is the first to take alarm, and the private purse, like some delicate thermometrical test, shows that the result is not satisfactory. There is another reason why this is the true test. I do not wish to see the education of the country committed entirely to Government management, and I am very much afraid of anything which tends to supersede private and charitable exertions in this work by Government help or by the result of taxation, for I firmly believe that the direct blessings which have been given to it from above depend upon the work being the direct work of charity, combining with all those ennobling influences which ever wait on well-directed efforts for the good of others, and prompted by high moral motives. And that that is the true principle, I for one believe, for this still higher reason, that the maintenance of the religious tone of education depends upon the religious education being carried on, as it now is,
  994
  through the aid of different religious denominations, rather than by one Government board. In a state of society like ours, divided upon religious matters, a common administration of education could only be carried on by the removal of all elements of dissent; but the elements of dissension between those anxious on religious grounds for the education of the people are just those very religious differences the existence of which would make it necessary that we should withdraw all peculiar teaching in religion before we could arrive at any common ground on which a Government scheme of education could be administered. For this reason I am very desirous that there should be no such assistance granted from the public purse as could lead to any suspension of that private charity which has already done so much for the work of education. But the test, observe, is not the actual amount granted from the public purse, but whether the proportion which it granted is fair as compared with the amount given by private charity to the same end, and whether it is sufficient to develop that charity to the utmost. At present we may say that the amount granted by Parliament is in round numbers £800,000, and the real test is whether that grant has tended to increase or diminish private efforts. So far from its having done so, I believe the effect of the Government grant up to this time has been to increase every year the sum given by private persons for the moral and religious teaching of the people. The £800,000 now distributed by Government leads to the expenditure of something like £2,000,000, expended by the people in order to obtain better schools and to make those schools more true to their high purpose; and therefore my thermometrical test of the amount spent says that too much has not been spent, because that which has been spent from the public purse has tended to increase, and not to supersede, the giants from private charity. We come next to the second test—that which practical men would call the real—which test is, Do we get a proper return for our money, and is what we get the true article we want? To a certain extent I am ready to admit that there has been in many districts and in many minds a tendency to dissatisfaction with some at least of the results. Some persons say that there has been too much of what, by a wrong use of the word, is called

  995
  "over-education," but what I think might more properly be called cramming for examination children to whom cramming was a positive damage, both now and in afterlife. I believe that, to a certain extent, there has been an injury in that way; and I am bound to ask, then, whether the Revised Code does lead to an amendment of that evil. The proposal of the Revised Code with regard to that particular evil, as I understand it, is to reduce the examination, upon the result of which for the time to come the money to be granted to the school by way of a capitation grant in lieu of all other grants is to depend, to an examination mainly in reading, writing, and arithmetic. I wish your Lordships for a moment to weigh what is the real result of such an alteration in the inspection of schools; because we have heard words which I think—no doubt unintentionally—tended to draw away your attention from the real point. It has been said that the Inspectors, as sensible men, can hardly find more pleasure, or so much, in questioning children as to the course of rivers in India and other recondite matters of which they knew nothing, as in examining into the plain, practical results in reading, writing, and arithmetic. I think, my Lords, that is to place the question upon a false issue. Hitherto the inspection, whatever its faults, has been carried on by men of high education. Those who have inspected our schools, so far as I have seen or know them or read their reports, have been men of high moral bearing and high religious tone. I wish to do full justice to what was said on a former occasion by my noble Friend the President of the Council, when he claimed for himself the credit of not having made any of these appointments, in any sense whatever, opportunities for jobbery, or for the promotion of the interest of private friends; but that they had been given honestly and truly to the very best men he could find. I have no doubt whatever that such is the case. My own experience convinces me of it, and I do not think that the country has any fault to find in that respect. But, my Lords, when we are told that such men as these cannot find more pleasure in conducting an examination under the old system than they will under the new Revised Code, I must beg your Lordships to consider what the new examination, if it means anything, really does mean, and wherein it differs from the old examination. The old examination tried to take
  996
  a gauge of the moral, intellectual, and religious training of the school with which it had to do. The result of that examination was to be honestly and truly reported, and it could only be gathered from innumerable little incidents which the practised eye of the Inspector easily deciphered—the mere look of the children, the brightness of the countenance, the cleanliness of the countenance and hands, the smoothness of the hair, the readiness of the eye, the mutual bearing of child to child, of the children to the pupil-teacher and master, and of the pupil-teacher to the master—all these were objects of attention to the highly-educated and intelligent man who had to say faithfully and honestly whether the school satisfied him as a Government Inspector or not. But what will be the examination if it is carried out honestly and truly under the Revised Code? It is really to be a mere inspection—not of the children in their general bearing—but a mere searching into how far the children individually in every part of the school are up to the mark in the most mechanical part of their training, reading, writing, and arithmetic. I beg your Lordships to notice this, that reading in men of your Lordships' education ceases to be mechanical. It is the acquiring of information through reading—the mechanical act has perished. You glance at the book without spelling it over word by word, letter by letter. But in these schools, in young children particularly, who have only lately been denizens of the school, it is a mere mechanical, and the most mechanical part of their training—it occupies the whole of their attention; and when a child is put up to be examined by this terrible Government Inspector, the effect of his nervousness and fright is to make his attention to that mechanical training more servile, and probably to make his chance of shining in it less. The result of forcing your Inspector to go through the school head by head must lead to each individual child having an infinitesimal portion of the Inspector's time. The most patient Inspector, therefore, must always be in a hurry with each separate child, and your Lordships who have had any experience in examining your parish schools know how quickly the temper of the examiner spreads to the examined, so that an examiner in a hurry is another word for a pupil in a fuss. The child examined will be put out; there will be no time for him to recover his step;

  997
  the current of examination will run on, and his poor efforts to show his head above the stream again will be utterly hopeless. Your object is not to teach in these schools mere mechanical drudgery, but to give the children an opportunity of raising themselves intellectually and morally above the level which is too often found in their cottage homes. But, by degrading the examination from an inquiry into the moral and intellectual tone of all the school into a test examination of each individual child in the most mechanical part of its training, you prevent the schools from being the true enlighteners of these children. To say that under such a system you are going to pay for results is a most fallacious way of putting it, because, in fact, you are going to pay for the poorest results, and to take the very worst criterion of the progress of education. It seemed like testing the efficiency of the accident ward of an hospital by sending in the hospital Inspector to examine the patient while his broken limb is in splints, in order that he may report on the success of the curative process, instead of waiting to see what would be the action and usefulness of the perfectly restored limb. The real result is what you turn out of the school as the effect of the education you give in it. The real result of a curative process is whether the patient when he comes out of the hospital has his strength and proper power of action given him again. Therefore when inspecting the education, and taking the great result at the single acquirement of reading, writing, and arithmetic, it is a perfect fallacy to say you are going to pay only for results. Why, what have been the results, in the very few years since the system was introduced? How long has this system of amending education by the employment of pupil-teachers been in operation? How long do your Lordships suppose it has been tried in any part of England? Why, so recently have any of the pupil-teachers gone out of their schools that you have as yet the smallest data possible to go on as to what the amount of improvement in general education really is which the training of such teachers promises to give. Under the most favourable circumstances, we have had as yet scarcely time to test what is the result. It is only ten years since the first few pupil-teachers went into any training college at all. The first pupil-teacher who left a training school as a certificated master only went
  998
  out in January, 1858. And only four years after this we are called on to pronounce that this system is, to a great extent, a failure! Having paid for efficiency, it is said, we are now to pay for results; we are going, in point of fact, under this Revised Code, to do away with the pupil-teacher system. Now, my Lords, the fallacy from which this state of things has arisen is this:—It has been stated by Her Majesty s Commissioners that in many schools the instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic has been unsatisfactory. But if proved, how far has that been the fault of the system, or a necessary evil, to be ascribed to the matter on which you have got to work? If you consider the interrupted attendance in schools of the lowest class, the gross ignorance out of which you have to raise the children, the dulness that waits on the first years of receiving instruction, I say the difficulty experienced in teaching these common things to the lowest classes is a difficulty to be ascribed to the subject-matter on which you have to work, not to the tools with which the work is done. I can quote from the Report of the Commissioners itself to show how greatly the evil has been exaggerated. In 89 per cent of the schools they state that reading is taught excellently or well; that it is taught moderately well in less than 11 per cent; and badly in less than one-quarter per cent. Writing is taught well in 90 per cent; moderately well in 9 per cent; and badly only in one-half per cent. Arithmetic is taught well in 83 per cent; moderately well in 15 per cent; and badly in 1½ per cent. But before the system is judged even by this not very frightful result, we must remember that of these inspected schools 20 per cent were not under a certificated master at all, and they pull down the general return from the whole of the schools. The results, therefore, have been grossly undervalued. But, suppose the deficiency is proved, in what way is this Revised Code likely to remedy it? The great proposition of that Code may be described as this:—It proposes to reduce all the payments for the assistance of elementary schools to a grant of one capital sum, instead of being given in many different ways, for pupil-teachers, on masters' certificates, and as a capitation grant. In the first place, my Lords, how will this tend, in any way, to remedy the evil? I believe it will not do so; on the contrary, I believe it will introduce

  999
  some new and some very great evils—some so great that I do not see how, practically, they can be met. One of these evils will be that the managers of schools must henceforth undertake the payment of pupil teachers and masters; they must take that responsibility on themselves, without having any general fund to which they can look for the supply of the money they need. From many things written in this Revised Code one would think it dealt with men to whom it is perfectly indifferent if they advance money at the beginning of the year on a possible chance of being repaid it at its close, on the chance that the scholars are tractable, that the Inspector makes a good report of the school, that everything goes well; it is assumed that the managers are perfectly indifferent as to incurring a certain and immediate outlay upon a somewhat indistinct chance of receiving their money back at the end of the year. But when we go to the fact, every one knows that, through a great part of the country, it is either some landowner who takes an interest in the matter, or, in the case of a great number of schools, the clergyman of the parish, who take on their own shoulders the burden of supplying everything that may be deficient. If there is any difference between the money spent and the money in hand, the clergyman has often to make it good, and the Report of the Commissioners shows that the clergymen expend a greater amount than the entire sum raised by private contributions. Now, you put a heavy burden on men who are overburdened already; and you put on them just that particular form of burden which a clergyman with a limited income, actuated by a full sense of honesty and duty, can least bear. You put on him, not a certain charge that he might spare out of his small income from the abundance of his charity, but an uncertain charge, that he cannot possibly say he shall be able to meet; and which, therefore, as an honest man, he cannot take. This part of the scheme is one that will not really operate, except in this one way—in checking the advance recently made in the work of education. And observe in making this one grant for the support of schools, as proposed, instead of in various grants, as hitherto, you do another injustice. You make what is a single grant, given on several different conditions, depend on the fulfilment of one single condition. The grants to these schools depend on the
  1000
  school buildings being appropriate and clean, on the masters being competent, on the pupil-teachers being what they should be. Then the second matter of inquiry is into the advance of the scholars—always a different inquiry in every respect. But now these two entirely dissimilar claims you propose to make dependent solely on the examination of the children. This is an injustice, and in direct opposition to the Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners, upon which the Revised Code bases its claim to consideration. Another head of offence is the proposition of the Revised Code, that henceforth the children shall be grouped for inspection by age. Any one conversant with the schools in the rural districts throughout the country will feel that it was hardly possible to devise a more bungling and mischievous proposition. The merest dunce—perhaps a girl just taken from what a popular writer has described as the "Moloch worship" of nursing babies—wishes to have the opportunity of training possessed by her younger sisters. The Inspector comes, and perhaps begins to examine this child among children of her own age, and finding a child of nine years of age, exceedingly backward, placed in Group No. I, the Inspector may take his estimate of the working of the school from this tremendous example. For that reason, my Lords, I look upon grouping by age as altogether a bungle and a mistake. The effect must be necessarily this:—That no schools which are looking for the capitation grant to any considerable amount can for the future afford to take these children on any terms; because, instead of raising, they will pull down the amount, so that just in proportion to the good which the school is doing will it be mulcted of the grant. And how is the difficulty met in the revision of the Revised Code? The rule laid down by the Revised Code is that no child above thirteen years old can be examined more than once. Now, it has been clearly shown that the children who get the greatest good in our schools are children of about this age. I speak on this point as a practical educator. After eighteen years of hard work as a parish priest in building up the school, I know from experience that the great object to be laboured for is to prevent a boy from being removed to keep the birds off the fields just as he is beginning to get the full benefit of the school. The result must be, that as these children are in future not

  1001
  to obtain the capitation grant after one examination, all the schools which find it difficult to obtain funds must throw these children over instead of clinging to them, because they will be too expensive to keep. And observe, ray Lords, that the districts most affected by this regulation will be not those in which the schools are supported by wealthy persons or are frequented by middle-class children, but they will be the poorer districts: the very places to which the public money ought to flow most freely, so as to make the maintenance of a good school possible, will be the places where the evil I have described, joined to the grouping system, will tell most cruelly Well, it is in the attempt to remedy this evil that a greater evil has been done. To meet this objection it is proposed that the younger children should be permitted to come to the night school. Now, instead of its being a good, it is the greatest possible evil to get those young children into the night school. All those who know anything of the working of Sunday Schools know that there was a time when the Sunday Schools were the means of continuing the education of young persons after they had left school; but gradually they became schools for young children, and the result is that those for whom they were intended have been universally driven away. So it must be. Let your Lordships picture to yourselves a night school. It is frequented by young fellows who are just of an age to feel the importance of education, but who have forgotten pretty nearly all that they learned at the slay school. They come with a hearty good will, anxious to learn; but they are awkward, and they are slow. Still, by gentleness and kindness, you may do with them a work of incalculable good. But now you are to send in three or four young children, eleven or twelve years of age, fresh from the first class of the morning school, and these will every evening be putting their elders to shame, making it impossible for them to endure the fool's-cap put upon their heads, as it were, by young children, just fresh from school. Believe me—I speak from experience—it will be one of the deadliest injuries you can inflict upon the moral and religious hopes which are hovering over the-e young men whom you are trying to raise from a life of boorishness through the influence of the night schools. Instead, therefore, of accepting this concession as a boon, I regard it as an additional injury.
  1002
  Here, then, I have pointed out to you some great evils in this Revised Code, and I venture to say that, with two exceptions, the alterations proposed are of a mischievous character. One of those exceptions is the determination not to deal at present "directly" with the training colleges. I lay stress upon the word "directly," because indirectly the training colleges are affected. And even this withholding of direct interference is very much like the non-interference of a thundercloud which is just about to burst. We are told that for the present, in consequence of the outcry which has been raised throughout the country, "My Lords" do not propose to take away the official support now given to the training colleges. A great deal is said about the disproportion between the public funds received by these institutions and the local contributions; but this disproportion must be expected. In the first place, the training colleges have not the local interest possessed by the elementary schools. Take my own diocese. We educate young men—Queen's scholars—not for our own diocese only, but for every part of England which likes to bid for them. It is, in point of fact, a public institution, supplying the Church of England schools throughout the country with trained teachers. Such an institution must necessarily lack the individual and local interest which lead the clergy and the laity—especially the wealthy laity—to give their support to elementary schools; and, as it addresses itself, therefore, to the supply of no local want, I think it has a right to a disproportionate grant from the public funds. Another reason for this disproportion is the novelty of these institutions. At first there was a great scramble for the young trained men sent out from the colleges. The demand for them was far above what they were entitled to supply, and in one instance one of those young men absolutely refused £70 a year and a house, thinking himself worthy of much more. Such a demand for their services rather turned the heads of those young men. But the remedy for this is to adjust the supply to the demand, and let the article find its proper value in the market. This result has begun to follow already, and the very complaint you make—namely, that there are some young men who do not immediately get positions—shows the influence of this wholesome law of demand and supply. But you will prevent the influence of this law

  1003
  altogether if you will limit the operations of the training colleges. With the best possible sifting of the young men a certain number must be admitted who have not a vocation for the work. It is most undesirable that they should be forced into the profession of a schoolmaster if their heart is not in the work; and for this reason it is also most desirable that there should be a margin of supply over and above the immediate and pressing demand, so that those who, upon trial, are found deficient may serve their country and their God in some other way. The objection, then, about the over-supply and the disproportionate payment made from the public purse to the training colleges, is a fallacy leading to a wrong conclusion. We may well fear, as the ultimate result, that four-fifths of the training colleges would be closed after the great expenses which private persons had been encouraged to make to start them. But I said that the Revised Minute, at all events, seems to withdraw any direct attack upon the training colleges; but does it wholly withdraw it? It appears to me that it does not.
  The second great complaint I make against the Revised Code and its revision is, that in practice it will, I think, be found to be almost fatal to the pupil-teacher system—which, in my opinion, has been the very best part of the scheme—and in proving fatal to that system will also prove fatal to the supply of scholars to become Queen's scholars in training colleges, and thus wither up those colleges by withholding the supply of candidates. You may say, perhaps, that the money of the country, ought not to be spent in this work of educating the poorer classes; but, my Lords, there is no disputing the fact that a great part of all the means of education provided for the higher classes in this country is supplied from public funds. We have our endowments of public schools and Universities. We cannot hope to obtain in the present day endowments for the support of the schools which provide for the education of the poorer classes. Then how are we to provide for those classes the assistance which the higher classes receive, if we do not do it out of the sum set aside by Parliament for the purpose of promoting the education of the middle and lower classes in this country? Then, how does the pupil-teacher system fare in this matter? It seems to be injured at every turn by this Minute. As the case stands now, every school with
  1004
  ninety scholars must have a pupil-teacher to come under the Government grant; but under the revision of the Revised Code, a school need not have a pupil-teacher until it reckons 130 scholars. Here is one injury. Then, by throwing upon the manager the whole support of these pupil-teachers, you make it morally certain that a great number of school managers will not venture to incur the now unnecessary expense of maintaining pupil-teachers, and these persons, therefore, will not be engaged. If you say 130 is the limitation that will take in the greatest number of these schools, I would refer your Lordships to the diocese of Canterbury, where the Inspectors tell us that out of 161 schools 123 have less than 90 scholars. You are not dealing with a few cases, but by the plan of throwing upon the managers the risk of employing pupil-teachers, and at the same time relieving them from the necessity of having those pupil-teachers, it seems to me that you are striking a blow—a fatal blow—to the pupil teacher system. More than this, in schools with more than 120 scholars up to 190 scholars, only one pupil teacher need be engaged by the managers; and if no pupil-teacher be engaged, then the penalty is the loss of a grant of £10 a year, but at the same time a saving of £19 in the cost of his maintenance. Pressed as are the majority of schools, I cannot but think that the working of the Revised Code—little as I know it was intended—but the effect of it will be to smite the very existence of the pupil-teacher system. There is nothing upon which the Royal Commissioners have reported more entirely favourably than this particular part of the system, and those who have examined into the state of education abroad and compared it with our condition at home have told us that the existence of that system was the one great feature that had improved the state of education in England so much within the last few years. Abolish that feature, and what would be the result? We should return to the old monitorial system—a change that, as it seems to me, would be fatal to the advance of education, because, as water cannot rise above its own level, so in the long run and in the majority of cases the taught cannot rise above the teacher; and if you have your untrained monitors instead of trained pupil teachers, you will degrade your schools to an extent which you can hardly

  1005
  estimate at present. In another point the new Code will tend to that result. In future, masters of day schools are to be allowed to teach in night schools, and pupil-teachers are to be permitted to receive instruction in these night schools. Any one who has ever been at a night school will know at once that there could not be a more mischievous suggestion. If a pupil-teacher is gaining anything, he is getting improved habits from the master, which raise him above the condition in which he first came to the school; and the process of raising, to do much good, must go on mainly not in the actual school hours or periods of teaching, but in the intercourse that takes place between the master and the apprentice. But, instead of that, the pupil-teacher is to be put into the midst of a crowd of young lads, after their day's work, with all the roughness and coarseness which are to be found among that class, and in the midst of hubbub and interruption arid all the lowering incidents attaching to a night school. I say that is no boon, but a great injury to the progress of education.
  I will not weary your Lordships with going into minute details; but there are many other matters which I might easily point out. I trust I have made it plain, first, that here was to be introduced suddenly a change which must, to the very foundation, affect the whole system of popular education; next, that the suspension of Government assistance in the shape of money help to these schools has been introduced suddenly, harshly, and without due appreciation of many delicate and important parts of the present system. Now, granting, for the sake of argument, that retrenchment was necessary, how should such a change have been introduced? I say with notice, gradually, and in a way that would least alarm a sensitive and easily alarmed class of persons—in a way that would have enabled those who are interested in the cause of education to provide substitutes for those means which are now to be taken away. Certainly such a change should not have been introduced suddenly, with scarcely any preparation, with every incident to create alarm, with the semblance—and, I believe from my heart, only the semblance—of an unfair mode of introduction. I must also say that, comparing the speech made in another place with the acts that followed that speech, I cannot wonder
  1006
  that persons with small incomes, such as schoolmasters, should be sensibly alarmed at the apparent discrepancy between the promise that there should be no sudden interruption, and the hastiness of the projected reform. With the exceptions of not having struck a deadly blow at the training colleges, of having reformed the terms of the Concordat of 1839, and of their being no intention to interfere with the religious training in schools, this revision of the Code is illusory and mischievous. I will not trouble your Lordships further, but thank you for the kind courtesy with which you have listened to me. I will only ask you to consider, one and all, that you are dealing with a most important matter. If you consider what has been done within the last fifteen years, and that in this work there have been many different agencies at work, all combining to this great result—the National Society, in strict connection with the Established Church; the British and Foreign Society, which has always had the firm support of the noble Earl near me (Earl Russell), which support has greatly contributed to its great successes—if you reflect that the number of children at school has, within the last fifteen years, been raised from 500,000 to 2,500,000; that the balance has been redressed between ignorance and due knowledge to such an extent that, whereas then there was only one in seventeen of the population receiving education, there is now one in seven—your Lordships will perceive the importance of this subject. So great has been the change, that whereas formerly we were below many continental nations in the scale of comparison with regard to education, yet now—with perhaps the exception of Prussia, where elementary education is inflicted as a legal penalty instead of being conferred as a paternal boon—we now compare advantageously. When I see these results, and remember that education hitherto has been connected with the formation of moral habits and the kindling of religious sympathies; and when I hear of the efforts, not only of the Church of which I am a minister, but also of Christians of all denominations, I feel that under this system secular education has been endowed and sanctified by the communication of religious truths. When I see at this moment that this great good is still increasing, I have a right to beseech your

  1007
  Lordships, as I do beseech you, to pause before you adopt plans which, by the admission of all, were laid upon the table of Parliament so ill considered that their very suggestors have been obliged to withdraw many of the most important suggestions. I do beseech you not to risk such results as I have pointed out, and not to interfere with the present system upon advice so hastily given and so lightly retracted.
  EARL GRANVILLE: —My Lords, in rising to make a few observations in answer to what has fallen from the right rev. Prelate, I must express my regret that indisposition prevents my noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle, the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Education, from attending in his place on this occasion and taking part in this discussion. I regret this absence the more because the speech of the right rev. Prelate consisted rather of an attack upon the conclusions at which the Royal Commissioners arrived than of an attack upon the measures which the Government have adopted, or are supposed to have adopted, in consequence of their recommendations. I regret likewise that, as I am myself now suffering considerable pain, I shall not be able to address your Lordships as I could wish, and I shall therefore be obliged to abridge my observations. The right rev. Prelate began by explaining the reason why he was the first Member of this House to bring this subject before your Lordships; and he said that he did so in consequence of the diocese over which he presides having taking the leading part in regard to the education of the children of the lower classes. Now, I was not myself aware of that fact before. I had always thought that the initiative in the movement was taken by the late Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, who conducted the original negotiations with the Government, which proved satisfactory to all parties; and that since that time there appeared to have been a most honourable rivalry between all the dioceses in the kingdom in the good work, so that it is exceedingly difficult to allot a more leading place to one than to another. It so happens, indeed, that in the diocese of Oxford—not owing to any want of energy, zeal, or ability, on the part of its bishop, as those who most differ from the right rev. Prelate's opinions must freely acknowledge, but from the rural character of the diocese—the very system of education now under discussion has
  1008
  made less progress, perhaps, than in any other part of the country. It is stated in the Report of the Commissioners that out of the whole number of parishes in that diocese—comprising, I think, 350—only twenty-four have schools conducted upon the system which has been so much praised by the right rev. Prelate. The real excuse for the right rev. Prelate is, that no one can better state the objections against the Government proposition. I rejoice that all that can be said against it has been said; and certainly when you are opposed by persons of considerable power, it is some mitigation of your fate to know that they do not quite agree among themselves. It is clear, for instance, that the right rev. Prelate is not in accord on this question with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), who does not oppose the principle of the Revised Code; nor is he exactly in harmony with the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton), who has given notice of a series of Resolutions on this subject. I quite concur, therefore, that this House ought not to come to any hasty decision on the matter.
  The first question with which the right rev. Prelate grappled was, whether there is necessity for economy in respect to the educational grant. He stated, very fairly I think, that the present system might be carried out at a cost nearer £2,000,000 than £3,000,000 sterling per annum; and that, considering the enormous importance of the education of the lower classes compared with the expense of defending ourselves against an external foe, he thought that sum was not too large for its object. Now, if it be impossible to educate the people without spending £2,000,000, and if those £2,000,000 will produce the desired result in the most efficient manner, I shall be quite as ready as the right rev. Prelate to advise the expenditure of that sum. But that is not the real question, which is this, whether this cannot be done, and done even more efficiently—for that is the whole gist of the matter—for a smaller outlay than the present, an outlay more under the control of Parliament, and producing more satisfactory results than those now realized. The right rev. Prelate then spoke—and I confess I was much surprised to hear it—of the immense value of the voluntary principle, of the enormous advantage of local management, and of not concentrating in the Government all the power to be applied to the education of the people. Hear, again, I entirely agree

  1009
  with him. But almost the chief characteristic of our proposal was, that instead of having something like 40,000 persons engaged in the work of education, whose number is increasing every year, directly connected with the Central Government, and that Government interfering with every possible detail of the application of the grant, there should, on the contrary, be more power and responsibility lodged with the local managers, who best understand the circumstances and requirements of their districts. The right rev. Prelate next refered to the Inspectors. I can personally bear witness to the immense service which these gentlemen have rendered to the cause of popular education. And after what we have heard as to the kind of occupation it would be for an intellectual man to have to examine children of 9 or 10 in reading, writing, and arithmetic, I must say I think that for the mere examination of a small school intended for the education of the labouring classes it is not absolutely necessary to employ senior wranglers and first-class men from Oxford. They are not needed for that part of the work. The chief good which these gentlemen have done has been in winning over the clergy and the landed proprietors of the country to the cause of the education of the poor, by the influence of their authority, attainments, and position, and in showing them the best menus of giving real effect to their efforts. With regard to what the right rev. Prelate calls the drudgery to be imposed on the Examiners, it is quite impossible, whatever may be the nature of the examination, that it should not be in some degree fatiguing both to mind and body of those who conduct it; and the reward of the clergy as well as of their lay brethen for acting in that capacity must be the consciousness of having discharged a duty and aided a work of great national importance. In commenting on the details of the proposed scheme, the right rev. Prelate dwelt very much upon the grouping of the children by age, and said that nobody who was practically acquainted with the working of the schools would have thought of recommending it. Now, I should be very glad if any person who is practically acquainted with the working of the schools would suggest an alternative and better mode of action—always supposing that you really intend to test the individual accomplishments of the children. The right rev. Prelate drew a partly pathetic and partly
  1010
  comic picture of that celebrated dance, sometimes represented as a male and sometimes as a female, who is physically incapable of learning, and who leaves school at about 9 or 10 years old. Now, I quoted a speech of Lord Stanley the other day, and also a memorial from a body of which the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) is a distinguished member, which bore testimony to the great fact—a fact which is beyond all dispute, and which has been fully recognised by the Royal Commissioners as well as by the department with which I am connected—namely, that, setting aside exceptional cases, the great mass of the children of the labouring classes do leave school when between 9 and 10 or 11 years of age, and that it is quite impossible to keep them there any longer in opposition to the claim of their parents upon their earnings. Surely, then, this celebrated dunce, who is only one child out of a hundred, is not so important a person that the State should he called upon to incur an enormous expense for his or her education. Then we come to the subject of evening schools. Ever since my attention has been officially directed to the question of popular education the conviction has grown upon me that the only solution of the problem how to give education to the children of the working classes, and at the same time enable them to do that work which, whether we will or not, they are sure to do, is by encouraging evening schools. The right rev. Prelate says we are going to destroy the evening schools, and to do what happened to the Sunday schools in consequence of the changes made in the day schools. Now, I have always understood that Sunday schools preceded by many years, and with the happiest effect, the establishment of day schools. But we are told, "You will destroy the evening schools, because you will get there fine young fellows of 18 or 19, who have forgotten almost everything they learnt at the day schools; and they will be so discouraged by the superior attainments of children of 13 that they will go away altogether in disgust." The case of these young fellows would, I apprehend, be very much like that of the pupils of the dancing master or the fencing master, who are often told by their teacher that he could really instruct them much better if they knew nothing at all than if they have learnt something before, but have not quite unlearnt it all again. The real good to be done in the work of popular edu-

  1011
  cation is to be done by making the evening school a sort of continuation of the day school. It is by establishing a connection between the two that the scholar will be prevented from forgetting what he has previously acquired. The next part of this subject is the training colleges. Some of the arguments which the right rev. Prelate used with reference to that subject seem to me to be of an extremely dangerous tendency. He appealed to political economy, a science of which I am glad to say that schoolmasters have some knowledge, and said that the proper thing to do was to leave the article to find its market value. But how is that market value to be ascertained by the Government paying 80 or 90 per cent of the cost of producing the article, and then selling it in the market for nothing? If that process is to be carried on for years and years, it seems to me that this is an argument which the masters—at least those who have studied political economy—will not at all appreciate. Another argument which seemed to me to be very dangerous in regard to the influence which our debates have upon public opinion, and upon opinion in another place, was, that for the benefit of the training colleges, and to support them, every part of the old system ought to be maintained. I do not think that that argument is likely to tend to the advantage of training colleges, which, under proper regulations, have been and will be most useful institutions.
  Having summed up all he had to say against the Revised Code, the right rev. Prelate urged, that if changes were to have been made, they should not have been made in so hurried a manner. I cannot think that the manner has been so hurried, and certainly the result has shown, that if a change was to be made, it was necessary to make it as soon as possible, and not to defer it until a time when it would have been impossible to introduce it, on account of the great number of persons who would have fancied that they had some sort of vested interest in the existing system. I think, that when at the request of Parliament a Commission has been appointed to inquire into a subject; when that Commission has sent its emissaries into every part of the country, and has sat for three years; when it has reported in March, and a plan has been brought forward five months afterwards which cannot come into operation fur another year, there is no undue haste, or indeed any, of which
  1012
  those most interested in the existing system have a right to complain. I do not wish to speak longer to night, because I think that the more convenient time at which to discuss the details of this measure will be when it is brought formally before your Lordships by the Resolutions of the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton). I shall be happy to hear anything which any noble Lord may have to say, or to give any further explanation which may be required; but, so far as I am concerned, I think that it would be injudicious, and not agreeable to your Lordships, that I should go further into the subject. I will only add, that nothing that has passed has shaken my conviction that at an opportune moment we have brought in a measure of which the principles are just and good, and which is favourable to the propagation and extension of those really sound elements of instruction which are most appreciated by parents, which are most useful to children, which do not interfere with the acquisition of habits of order and discipline, or of that more extended knowledge which we shall be happy to see taught in schools if the managers see fit, but which are so thoroughly essential to the education of the children of the labouring classes of this country.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that as there appeared to be a general desire that this subject should not be discussed that evening, and as the question must come forward again, he would not detain their Lordships at any length, but he must say that he did not think that the noble Earl had in any manner answered the grave charges and objections which had been brought forward by the right rev. Prelate. As to the introduction of younger children into the night schools, his right rev. Friend had no desire that those children should go without education; but he had contended, and with reason, that their admission into evening schools would diminish the attendance of those for whom such schools were specially intended. One grave objection to the new system was, that instead of the education of the country being conducted as heretofore religiously and conscientiously, it would introduce into it a mercantile spirit—that there would be a danger of its engendering and fostering a feeling in the minds of schoolmasters which would induce them to look upon their pupils as having a certain money value, and to neglect those whose instruction was not

  1013
  likely to be remunerative. The schoolmaster's pecuniary interests rather than the moral training of the child would be rather attended to. It would also prevent managers from giving to the schools that constant notice and attention which they had hitherto bestowed upon them, and would expose teachers to the temptation—one which he hoped and firmly believed would never be yielded to, but which would nevertheless exist—to falsify returns in order to secure money payments. The money payment might be forfeited for a thousand and one causes over which the teacher had no control. A parent might, out of some motive of pique or spite, prevent his child from being present on the day of examination; or a child, in order to be revenged upon his teacher, might refuse to answer any questions which were put to him. He hoped that their Lordships and the other House of Parliament would pause and thoroughly consider this question before they determined to adopt a system which he believed would seriously impede and obstruct the great work of educating the independent poor of this country.
  The EARL OF DERBY: —I think the House and the country are deeply indebted to the right rev. Prelate for having brought forward the important subject of the new Code of Education in a manner which com mends itself to the admiration, if not the assent, of all your Lordships. That right rev. Prelate has spoken with a power of language which few who heard him can presume to emulate—with an influence of language all the greater because it is evidently used to express convictions founded upon a thorough knowledge of the subject which he has brought to your attention. I will not presume to weaken the effect of that most powerful address by attempting, in the present state of the House, and seeing the general desire which exists that the subject should be discussed on another occasion, to enter on any portion of this great subject of education. I only desire to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the speech of the right rev. Prelate is of eminent value from its deeply suggestive character—not however exhausting the subject, but, on the contrary, showing to your Lordships, and to the country at large, how extensive, how wide is the field, how multifarious the considerations involved in the decision to which both Houses are invited, and of what vast importance in their ultimate results must be those portions of the scheme of educa-
  1014
  tion which are regarded by the noble Earl opposite as mere details, but each of which nevertheless involves principles of the greatest magnitude and of the highest interest to the country at large. I confess I heard with some surprise the statement that there must be considerable difference of opinion between myself and the right rev. Prelate on this subject, inasmuch as I had, on a former occasion, expressed my approbation of the principle of the Revised Code. I do not remember ever expressing such approval of the Revised Code. What I did say with regard to the re-Revised Code of Education of the Committee of Council on Education was this:—I stated that, so far as I could judge—so far as the alterations in the re-Revised Code were concerned—those alterations were in the right direction. That was the highest amount of approval which, to the best of my recollection, I ever bestowed on any part of the Revised Code.
  EARL GRANVILLE:—I must take the liberty of reminding the noble Earl that he stated that he regarded the Revised Code as a Bill which was entitled to be read a second time, although there were details in it to be discussed in Committee. The second reading of a Bill I have always understood implies approval of its principle—the details are to be considered in Committee.
  THE EARL or DERBY: —I am much obliged to my noble Friend for explaining how he has so entirely misapprehended and misrepresented my views on the subject. I am happy also that he has called my attention to the particular cause of his misapprehension, as it affords me an opportunity of saying a few words on a subject which I consider of great importance. I was just saying that I considered the right rev. Prelate had done good service by the suggestive character of his speech, and by showing the mass of details contained in the new Code, ail of which were of the highest importance, but which it was impossible in a loose and cursory discussion to do justice to, or for the country to come to a right conclusion. But my noble Friend reminds me that on a former occasion I stated my opinion that in proceeding to consider this Code it would be desirable that our proceedings should be analogous to those of the House of Commons and of your Lordships' House after the second reading of a Bill, when its several provisions are separately discussed in Committee. Assuming that this House was

  1015
  prepared to receive the Code laid on the table by the Government as a Bill which had passed the second reading, the course I recommended was the taking up of the several portions of the whole scheme—the whole enactment, if I may so say—and considering them seriatim, as you would consider the clauses of a Bill in Committee. Well, I confess that, after all I have seen, after all I have read, after all the conversation I have had, I am confirmed in my opinion that the proper course of proceeding would have been for the Government to have placed the whole scheme before the House embodied in Resolutions, on each of which the two Houses might have been able to enter on a separate discussion, and on each of them come to a definite conclusion. That is a course which on a former occasion was pursued in "another place" by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when he introduced a system of education. He laid before the House of Commons a series of twelve Resolutions, to which, separately, he invited the consideration of the other House. [Earl GRANVILLE: That would have required a Bill.] I heartily wish that a similar course had been pursued on the present occasion in both Houses, so that the scheme might have been exposed to the criticism which a Bill receives in every stage of its progress—not decided by a hostile vote to a proposition of the Government, but criticised and discussed along the whole deliberate course of proceedings in progress through both Houses, and the result of such mature deliberation forming the foundation of a legislative measure. If the Government earnestly desire—not to save themselves trouble, not to pass an imperfect, ill-considered scheme—but to co-operate with the two Houses of Parliament for the purpose of carrying through, with general assent, a measure which must be felt to be a great improvement upon the existing temporary, tentative system, I say they would have offered spontaneously to your Lordships and the other House the best and the simplest means of discussing every detail; and I say it is a proof of the sense which the Government entertain of the weakness of their own proposal, and of their inability to stand the test of criticism, that they have laid on the table a whole Code as they propose to have it passed, without affording an opportunity for either House to criticize its separate and detailed provisions. Why, take any important mea-
  1016
  sure of legislation intended not for temporary but for permanent purposes, which should be calculated to exercise not perhaps a twentieth part of the influence which this measure must have on generations yet unborn—suppose the noble Lord on the Woolsack bad placed the Bankruptcy Bill on the table—had placed it there as a whole, and told you it was competent for you and the other House to take one vote whether you would have that Bill or none at all—I ask what would have been the feeling of Parliament and of the country if such a course had been taken—if such a mode of proceeding had been adopted, utterly unfitted for sifting the defects of the measure? And yet I do not hesitate to say that, important as that Bankruptcy Bill of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was, it shrinks into insignificance—nay, into nothingness—in comparison with the influence, for good or for evil, of the passage of this Revised Code for Education. I therefore regret that Her Majesty's Government did not give us an opportunity of discussing the enactment—for such it is—of discussing this Code clause by clause, and coming to a deliberate decision on all the important points which the right rev. Prelate has so ably and with so much power and eloquence laid before you. I rejoice to think that in the other House, if not in this House, the several provisions of this measure are likely to undergo a greater amount of discussion than Her Majesty's Government appear to have proposed to themselves. I concur with what fell from the right rev. Prelate that, as the case stands at present, it would be more expedient that we should learn from the discussion in the other House the views of that House regarding the several provisions of the Code before we proceed to fetter and bind ourselves down by abstract Resolutions, from which we should have no power to depart; and therefore I would add to the earnest recommendations of the right rev. Prelate that the noble Earl should for a time abstain from asking your Lordships to come to any decision on those points. I do think it is important that, at some time and in some manner, the Houses of Parliament should have an opportunity of pronouncing—not a judgment on the whole measure by abandoning the Vote for any educational purposes, which might be the alternative presented by the Government—but I think it is most important that most frequent op-

  1017
  portunities should be given for enlarging on and discussing the various points which the right rev. Prelate has brought under our consideration tonight. In the absence of any Government Resolutions such as I have adverted to, the next most expedient course appears to me to be, that the salient points of this measure should be brought under the consideration of the House in the form of Resolutions; and I rejoice to find that—not, however, without some hesitation—not without some vacillation, which appeared to me somewhat extraordinary—Her Majesty's Government have consented that the House of Commons should go into a Committee of the Whole House to consider certain Resolutions on the subject. But in doing so I think the Government have abdicated a portion of their own functions, because they have cast upon others a task which they should themselves have undertaken. The most straightforward course would have been for the Government themselves to have prepared Resolutions in such a manner as to enable Parliament to pronounce an opinion upon them. There are many leading points especially those mentioned by the right rev. Prelate, which would strike the minds of many as those on which the greatest amount of deliberation was necessary, and on which it is most important that the opinion of Parliament should be pronounced; but there are a vast number of minor details, not insignificant in themselves nor unimportant in themselves, but which are not of a magnitude to render it necessary to ask the opinion of Parliament on them. Every Amendment which may be suggested, and which meets the assent of Parliament, the Government would, of course, insert in the Resolutions. Still, even supposing the scheme to be taken with the Resolutions and Amendments suggested, it would still result in a very imperfect work because of the minor details which might be overlooked. I shall not now trouble your Lordships further, more especially as my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville)—perhaps conscious of the weakness of the case he has to support—has not given the slightest answer to the objections in principle—to the prominent objections in principle—raised by the right rev. Prelate. The noble Earl has not shown how the great evils pointed out by the right rev. Prelate would be obviated. He has not shown that they will not be even increased and aggravated by the provisions of the
  1018
  Revised Code. It would be almost indecent to go into the details of that speech of the right rev. Prelate. I only hope that it will go forth into the country—it cannot go forth into the country with the power and force with which the House has listened to its eloquence—but I hope the substance, the suggestions contained in that eloquent speech, will go forth to the other House of Parliament and to the country; for to the one and in the other it will show, beyond the possibility of doubt, the vast importance of the question with which we and they have to deal; the evil which may afflict the country if the question is dealt with as proposed by the Government—the absolute necessity for the deepest consideration and the greatest pains-taking revision—if they do not wish to weaken or abolish much of the good which has been effected during the last fifteen or twenty years; and if they do not wish, by hasty and inconsiderate legislation, to bring on the country not a blessing but a curse—to destroy the blessing which the country has derived and may probably derive in a still greater degree—if only certain modifications and improvements are made in the present system—if they will persevere in that course from which we have derived great advantages, in which we have only made our first steps and experiments, but from which every year, if there is no rash interference, you may reap a largely-increasing benefit.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that he concurred with the noble Earl in admiring the extreme ability and force of the speech with which the right rev. Prelate had introduced this subject to their notice; but be was reminded of the advantage which members of a sacred profession enjoyed in the pulpit of putting their opponent's arguments in their own words, and thus facilitating the task of demolition. No later than Sunday he listened to a sermon in which an elaborate definition of Calvinism was given by the preacher; but he (the Duke of Argyll) did not recognise it as any sort of Calvinism which had ever been taught in Scotland: however, there was no one there to contradict it. Upon the present occasion the right rev. Prelate had taken most extraordinary liberties with the arguments which were supposed to be held by his opponents, and pointed out what were the grounds of objection to them. The right rev. Prelate stated that the new Code was founded upon the supposition that under the present system

  1019
  there was over-education; and then he said that in order to get rid of this evil they were about to lower the standard of examination. This, however, was not the fault, or one of the faults, objected to the present system—and he entirely omitted to notice, except perhaps inferentially, that the main accusation against that system was, that three-fourths of the children of the poor received no education at all which they were able to retain for a single year after they had left school. The speech of the right rev. Prelate was able, elaborate, poetical, and, like all his speeches, ingenious, because he contrived to deal with this great question without alluding to the fact that the Royal Commission, for the appointment of which the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) deserved the thanks of the country, betrayed to the country the alarming fact that, with the great sums annually provided, they did not succeed in educating to any practical result three-fourths of the children of the poor. The right rev. Prelate ought, at least, to recognise the fact that the report of the Commissioners was not that the children were over-educated, but under-educated—not that the examination was too high, but that there was no examination at all. Such was the proposition and statement of the Royal Commission, and the whole question was whether the new Code was fairly directed towards remedying the evil. The children of the poor did not attend school after they were ten or eleven years of age; and if they had not learnt to read and write before they left school, they left absolutely without the means of self-education and self-improvement. It was no light accusation which the Commissioners brought against the present system. It was a fundamental objection that it failed to give that education without which all other gifts were useless. The right rev. Prelate had dwelt on the advantages of moral and religious education; but what security had the country that the children would carry away with them religious and moral education when the mere mechanical art of being able to read the Bible and Prayer Book was utterly lost, in a very short time after they left, through a deficiency in the education which they had received? He maintained that, as a rule, moral and religious influences would have no permanent hold upon children who neglected to acquire the ability to read, write, and cipher; and that, on the other hand,
  1020
  where the time of the children was well employed in learning to read, write, and cipher, moral and religious teaching was more likely to have a lasting influence. But, whether that was so or not, the children would at least be provided by the State with the means of self-improvement and self-education. With regard to the observations which had been made upon the manner in which the Government had dealt with the subject, he had full confidence that it was the desire and intention of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) to keep the question separate from anything like party influences. The noble Earl had avowed that intention on the first night of the Session; but he (the Duke of Argyll) confessed he thought the almost excited tone in which the noble Earl had spoken that night had rather an ominous sound about it; and when the noble Earl complained that the Government did not proceed by Bill or Resolution, he must surely have forgotten that the system was originally founded upon Minutes of Council, subject, of course, as every act of the Executive must be, to the approval of Parliament. It was too late to blame the Government for having done precisely that which every other Government had done, and which, he presumed, the noble Earl contemplated might be done when he appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the practical operation of the present system. He approved of the grant being distributed through the medium of the different denominations, and also in such a manner as best to stimulate private charity and local efforts. These were the two fundamental principles of the Code, though innumerable alterations had been made at different times in the manner of carrying them out. The Royal Commission had distinctly shown that the system was not producing all the effects which were hoped from it, and it was the bounden duty, therefore, of the Government at once to endeavour to remedy its deficiencies.
  The EARL OF DERBYexplained: The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) seems to think it inconsistent in me to suggest proceeding by Bill or Resolution, when the present system was established originally by Minutes, and altered continuously by Orders in Council. My answer is simple. That up to the present time the system has been avowedly experimental and tentative. We have now a great change proposed, which would materially alter the

  1021
  existing system, and introduce many new principles and provisions; and we now have it announced by the Government, that there is, for the first time, a cessation of a temporary system and the introduction of a permanent one—and I say, though we may be satisfied with the result of the experimental system of education, varying slightly from time to time; yet when we are going to take steps for founding a permanent system the greatest precaution should be taken, and just opportunities should be afforded to Parliament to decide what the alterations should be. In many most important points the plan of the Privy Council differs distinctly from that of the Royal Commission; and in none more than in the point adverted to by the right rev. Prelate. Nothing can be more distinctly laid down than the proposal by the Commission that there should be two separate systems of remuneration, I do not dissent from the noble Duke's statement, that the Royal Commission has laid it down that reading, writing, and arithmetic have, in many instances, been neglected; what I do dissent from is, the noble Duke's statement that the Commissioners have reported that the education of the people under the system of Parliamentary grants, had been a complete failure. So far from this, the Royal Commission distinctly state, that with regard to a great portion of the schools, even on the very points adverted to, the children have been taught in a satisfactory manner; and the Commissioners speak in the highest terms of the practical results which have ensued from the labours of the teachers and managers, and from the visits of the Inspectors. I am surprised the noble Duke should have confounded reading, writing, and arithmetic, with education, and that because these have been imperfectly taught in some instances, therefore the system of education has been a failure. I hold, that though children may leave one of these schools with an imperfect knowledge of the important but secondary matters of reading, writing, and arithmetic, they will still have gained immense advantages from the school by the habits of order, discipline, cleanliness, and respect for those in authority over them; and that the fruits of good training would be discernible, and they would probably be influenced in some degree with a desire to fulfil their duty faithfully and honestly in that state of life to which it should please God to call them.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLdenied, that he had represented the Commissioners to have reported that the present system of education was a failure; what he had said was, that they had stated that three-fourths of the children of the poorer classes were not so instructed in reading, writing, and arithmetic as to retain any knowledge of those matters after they left school.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he did not intend to occupy much time in reply. The noble Duke had accused him of putting words into the mouths of his opponents; but the noble Duke himself had certainly attributed language to him which he had never uttered. He had never said that the New Code was founded on an opinion that there had been over-education under the present system. What he did say was, that it was founded on a statement that a large proportion—three-fourths—of the children of the poor left school without knowledge which it was most important for them to possess; and having done that, he proceeded to show why the particular mode adopted by the Government would increase instead of diminishing the evil; that this was a retrograde movement, that it would give worse teachers, and afford the taught a shorter time for instruction. The great reason of that evil was not in the schools—for the Commissioners had never said so—but that soon after they left they forgot their reading, writing, and arithmetic, because they left too early, and as there had not been created in their minds a sufficient estimate of the value of those attainments; and this new scheme would aggravate the evil. The noble Duke had communicated to their Lordships that some unknown preacher, in some unknown church, in some unknown part of the metropolis, had misrepresented the arguments of somebody else; and if next Sunday this unknown preacher should repeat the process, he would be able to say, "I have done no more than a noble Duke did in his place in Parliament, when he refuted an argument which was never adduced."
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he certainly recollected having heard the right rev. Prelate make use of an argument founded on the assumption of over-education.
  Petitions ordered to lie on the table.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.